Jump to content
starchunk

Stick Structures are not evidence

Recommended Posts

norseman
BFF Donor
5 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

The rainfall in Eastern Washington is a fraction of that in the West.     The Eastern mountains  get more thunderstorm action in the summer months which are pretty dry June through September in the West.    But thunderstorms dump rain then dry quickly in the low humidity of the Eastern Mountains.    So the climates are very different.       Idaho panhandle and Eastern WA and Oregon Mountains are very similar.  

 

I think BF are intelligent enough that they might have religious practices.      If so, perhaps the structures have some religious significance?     Shrines to dead ancestors and that sort of thing?    Perhaps the bare wood devoid of bark signifies bare bones?     Speaking of that,   I wonder if anyone has taken the trouble to dig under some of the big TeePee structures?    Maybe in some areas they bury the dead then build the structure over the grave?    Would be good to find a structure on private land and dig under it with a backhoe.    Anything humans do it some parts of the world should be compared with what we think BF is doing here.    After all like us, they came here from someplace else in the world, and may have brought customs with them.     

 

It all depends on where you are at. Some of it is as wet as parts of the coast.

AA242033-ADB4-4E4F-861C-D88EF7B63BE9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor
5 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Fairies, perhaps. Gnomes, little people.

 

All have as much corroborating evidence as your default, confirmation-biased conclusion.

 

Paul Vella,  (RIP) was based in the UK. Years ago, perhaps on BFF v.1 or AIBR,  Paul listed the 'little people': gnomes, fairies and more types that I can't remember,  and explained the characteristics of each type. Some will scare you.   Perhaps  a BFF member in the UK can elaborate on 'the little people'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Twist:   You seem to have the same problem as most skeptics.   Reading comprehension.   I plainly stated that stick / log structures are not present in this area.  How would I dig under one when they are not here?   Of course BF does not have culture as we know it.   They are not human.  

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

SWWASAS:  Like a lot of “footers” you have a similar problem of a plethora of stories with no evidence.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
14 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

..........I think BF are intelligent enough that they might have religious practices.      If so, perhaps the structures have some religious significance?     Shrines to dead ancestors and that sort of thing?.......

 

14 hours ago, Twist said:

..........Once you start attributing burial sites and memorials to BF you are implying culture.   For me personally, I do not see BF having culture as we know it.  I believe they are an animal.  I’m open to being wrong but nothing I’ve read, seen, or believe point to culture.   

 

This line of thought is very important in my opinion..........at least it is to me. This is especially so as an increasing number of people within sasquatchery (me included) has come to accept that sasquatches, yeti, Orang pendak, etc are human subspecies rather than "apes" like orangs, gorillas, and chimps. Repeated cases of DNA tested physical evidence coming back as "human", or similar such "results", are turning my opinion toward human subspecies. 

 

The claims of Albert Ostman and Muchalat Harry play into this just a bit, not religiously, but culturally. Both stories, like generalized aboriginal legend, have accredited sasquatches with language, family structure, and/or extended family or community. Many other reports, like the Sierra Sounds habitation story, support this.

 

But there continues to be no evidence of religious practice among sasquatches. Like wolves, orcas, porpoises, chimps, gorillas, elephants, horses, and other very intelligent social animals, there is impressive social structure, communication, cooperation, and even emotion, but no religious practice. Even the first and most basic form of religious practice (burial) is either lacking, or poorly established. Purported giant skeletons buried are almost always associated with aboriginal mounds or societies, not sasquatch related places like caves.

 

They simply haven't eaten the fruit of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and in all honesty, I don't think any of those species ever will. Indeed, it appears that mankind is becoming feral again as a species. An increasing number of people, remarkably within those places most dense with mankind (cities), are showing a decreasing understanding of the differences between good and evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
9 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

Paul Vella,  (RIP) was based in the UK. Years ago, perhaps on BFF v.1 or AIBR,  Paul listed the 'little people': gnomes, fairies and more types that I can't remember,  and explained the characteristics of each type. Some will scare you.   Perhaps  a BFF member in the UK can elaborate on 'the little people'.

 

I'm not familiar with the Paul Vella you refer to, but I was briefly acquainted with a Paul Vella who had one of the coolest jobs ever; investigating terrorist bombings (and other terrorist acts like assassinations) for DoD, then experimenting with ordnance of all kinds (including their own IEDs fashioned after terrorist IEDs, or what they expected people to build) to figure out a new anti-terrorist engineering strategy. 

 

That aside, you're probably aware of the "little people" legends among Alaska native beliefs and oral history. "The Strangest Story Ever Told", centered on Thomas Bay in southeast Alaska involved such creatures. Stories of little people abound in western Alaska from the Kuskokwim delta north to the Arctic Ocean coast above Kotz. In fact, other than the "Strangest Story" being set in southeast Alaska, native stories tend to put sasquatches along the Gulf of Alaska coast and interior Alaska regions, and little people along the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean coasts. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

The Salish have stories of little people as well. (I realize Inc threw them out in jest)

 

https://medium.com/@nkolakowski/teddy-roosevelt-vs-bigfoot-801f70967bb2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
10 hours ago, norseman said:

 

AA242033-ADB4-4E4F-861C-D88EF7B63BE9.png

 

Compare your precipitation map to an SSR map of sasquatch reports.

B279E973-1016-41BB-9BCA-66E7EF5252B7.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
57 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

.....That aside, you're probably aware of the "little people" legends among Alaska native beliefs and oral history. "The Strangest Story Ever Told", centered on Thomas Bay in southeast Alaska involved such creatures. Stories of little people abound in western Alaska from the Kuskokwim delta north to the Arctic Ocean coast above Kotz. In fact, other than the "Strangest Story" being set in southeast Alaska, native stories tend to put sasquatches along the Gulf of Alaska coast and interior Alaska regions, and little people along the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean coasts. 

 

47 minutes ago, norseman said:

The Salish have stories of little people as well. (I realize Inc threw them out in jest)

 

https://medium.com/@nkolakowski/teddy-roosevelt-vs-bigfoot-801f70967bb2

 

In Ivan T. Sanderson's 1961 Abominable Snowmen: Legend Comes To Life he wrote about the "Little Red Men of the Delta" and the "Little Red Men of the Trees". These creatures supposedly live in the bottom lands of Mississippi and Louisiana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I was talking to a Quinalt Tribal Elder about Sasquatch and he said he did not worry about Sasquatch.   It was the little people who are the dangerous ones in the woods.   I asked if he meant humans and he said no.     So many tribes have oral histories of little people.     I was trying to get an invitation from the elder to do BF research on their tribal lands.    He was encouraging and questioned me about my intentions and experiences.   He flat stated that only those worthy will ever see Sasquatch.   He took down my contact information but I never heard anything from them.   I guess I am not worthy.  


Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
12 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:
  • .........I guess I am not worthy.

 

At least not yet. But maybe your worthiness will arrive one day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Well not sure about that but I don't buy the theory that if you just go hang out in the woods long enough and seem like a good person, BF will eventually show themselves.     I think it more likely people see BF because they just happen to surprise a BF by being at the right place at the right time.   As long as surprising BF does not get you killed is the only thing I care about.    Matter of fact, my experience suggests that the more you annoy them the more likely they are to let you know they are around.   In their book I likely am not worthy because of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Body language IMHO is the most important aspect of research. People that see them as a 'surprise" probably don't look threatening or are doing something that they are more focused on than looking for BFs. Even just walking without looking around could be construed as a type of non-threatening body language. Bushwhacking while watching for footprints or carefully studying stick structures? Not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

.........I don't buy the theory that if you just go hang out in the woods long enough and seem like a good person, BF will eventually show themselves.........

 

I don't think that's what the virtue of "worthiness" means with regard to interacting with sasquatches. 

 

I feel worthiness when I observe wolves and brown bears in the wilderness. Think about it: how many people observe grizzly bears outside of national parks, where both bears and humans are managed like in a zoo? Indeed, how many people have even seen a grizzly bear in a national park? With about 55,000 brown bears in all of North America (I've seen posts on this forum estimating that many sasquatches, which is ridiculous), I'll bet that well fewer than half a percent of Americans have ever seen a grizzly in the wild. 

 

But most of who have, especially if they've seen them many times, I would say are worthy of the privilege...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Certainly I spend most of my time looking for footprints,  and trying to tune into what I now recognize as the sound of them moving around.   That is at the very low end of my ability to hear in nearly in the infra-sound range.      Moving water not only masks that sound but the rocks in streams knocking together make a similar near infra-sound thuds.    .     After my very uncomfortable cougar encounter I check my 6 Oclock much more often that I did before that but that is probably a waste of time as quiet as cougars move.   I do pay a lot of attention to birds.   Especially ravens and crows.    I think they work for BF, not in the human way, but have some sort of symbiotic mutual benefit way.   Announcing strangers in the woods and hoping that the strangers end up as carrion to clean up.    I have to remind myself to look up into the trees.   I think it highly probably that juvenile BF spend a lot of time in trees.  

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×