|
Post by Gerry on Aug 26, 2008 14:37:25 GMT -5
...is absolutely necessary in exploring this mystery. All of the following threads were installed into this category to initiate such thinking! What is happening here, is not that I am debating whether or not the topic of these threads are evidence of sasquatch, but rather..why..they should be considered to be so? They may be evidence,of sasquatch but no one has proven why they could even be considered as such. What would be the point of following a trail of evidence which has in no way been proven to be sasquatch related? And what conclusion could you draw about sasquatch from following this path ? It is very clear that the old methods of deciding what is evidence is not working. And it never has! If we had, we would be much further along with all of this. Someone once said to me,...that my standards of what is evidence of sasquatch is much higher then theirs. So I should not be trying to raise their standards for selecting what... is evidence... of sasquatch existing, and what is not! I found that to be very sad. Sad for this person, and sad for the research in this field. Evidence should be able to stand on its own...whether it leads to proof of the existence of sasquatch, or not.
Recordings should be evidence in their own right..by having the person who recorded the vocalization back it up with a visual of the creature which made it. (With his/her own eyes! Not speculation.
To say that a sasquatch is capable of building any kind of primitative structure is something that should be backed up with an eye witness account! Or even sasquatch's use of such! I have never heard of a report about a sasquatch sleeping in a nest! All reports of sleeping sasquatch report the same. Knelt on the ground with chest and head resting on the forest floor. Sometimes with arms over head, or straight back along the body with palms upward.
Yet! These things are out there and people treat them like gospel and pursue such false evidence considering it to bolster proof of the existence and mannerisms of this creature
Sound Blasting and beating sticks! Totally unproven to be in any way effective in proving the existence of the creature. And totally inconclusive as to if such even are sasquatch related ventures. Sender and receiver are two unknowns. Two unknowns do not make a 'known'.
Critical Thinking would have stopped a lot of this side tracking before it even started! imho!
What do you think?
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Aug 26, 2008 15:44:41 GMT -5
I personally do not like the approach of chucking out certain possible evidence just because it does not fit a certain criteria.
For example, many researchers do not accept footprints unless there are a row of them, they have distinct features such as toes, and are a result of a chance event--therefore no one could have planted them to be "found."
I've seen four potential footprints. Two were indistinct but associated with a possible sighting. They were deep impressions, not in a row, and there were only two because the surrounding medium did not take prints, they were in a bed of softer soil that happened to take the impressions well. They were not part of a row, and toes were suggested but not distinct. It would not have been possible for them to be fakes or bear tracks. They could have been human, but were extremely deep and large to be so and because of the associated sighting probably are genuine.
The next two prints were next to a stream bed, and it looked like the walker was walking in the stream and took a couple of random steps up onto the sandy edge. The prints were deep and there were distinct toe impressions. Again, it was not possible for them to be fakes and they did not look at all like bear tracks. They could be possibly very large human bare prints, but was late November in a quite remote location and that is unlikely.
I am going to accept the possibility that Sasquatch occasionally adopt and use shelters such as caves, and it is not outside the range of primate behaviour that they even make them. Sightings of them sleeping in the open does not mean they don't on occasion use shelters. It may depend on weather, it may be a learned behaviour only used by clans or clades in certain areas, or what have you. I am not going to close my mind to a possibility just yet. We simply do not know enough about these creatures to start making rules about them and boxing in our knowledge of them. Keep it open.
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Aug 28, 2008 16:55:11 GMT -5
What I was talking about in the previous post was not..knowledge of them...rather it was wild supposition and speculation about them, which many have glommed onto as evidence of their existence! As for footprints? I have seen what I could concede to be prints, but I reserve judgment on them just for the reasons you mentioned. Lack of numbers, gait, stride anything that would tell me something about the creature which made them. And without that information to use, then they are just oddities which may, or may not be an actual footprint! By the way, for all of you reading this..check out Sebastions announcement about Green Point in October. There will be footprint casting and identification workshops!!!!
|
|
Sean V.
Has opinions now!
Alberta Sasquatch Researcher
Posts: 256
|
Post by Sean V. on Oct 14, 2008 21:21:56 GMT -5
Yet! These things are out there and people treat them like gospel and pursue such false evidence considering it to bolster proof of the existence and mannerisms of this creature. Not necessarily false, just unknown. I agree with the "accepted" vocalizations not being any sort of real proof. Interesting yes, but definite proof, no. As for wood knocking, I have and still do use it. If I get a response from the dark forest in the late night/early morning hours, then it proves that there is something out there capable of grasping a piece of wood and striking another piece of wood with it, and having the intelligence to understand what/why it was doing. Could it be another person? Possibly. But not likely where we are. As for Sasquatch sleeping in a shelter. The only thing that I have ever found was a crushed "bed" of grass close (within meters) of a sighting report location. But could they make a shelter if they really needed to? I would imagine so. If they knew what the coming weather was bringing and the amount of discomfort they may feel if left exposed. Just because no one has witnessed one crawling out of a shelter all bleary eyed and stiff in the morning does not mean that they do not use shelters. Has anyone ever sighted a Sasquatch while it was relieving itself? If the answer is no, then your line of thinking here would leave this the most constipated creature roaming the woods. I cannot agree with your line of thinking that just because someone has not witnessed this creature doing something, that it does not do it. Alot of the things in this field of research that are taken as "gospel truth" should be reconsidered, perhaps some of them should be put in the Highly Unlikely pile. But they should not be discarded just because someone hasn't witnessed the creature performing the act.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2008 23:07:42 GMT -5
Yet! These things are out there and people treat them like gospel and pursue such false evidence considering it to bolster proof of the existence and mannerisms of this creature. Not necessarily false, just unknown. I agree with the "accepted" vocalizations not being any sort of real proof. Interesting yes, but definite proof, no. As for wood knocking, I have and still do use it. If I get a response from the dark forest in the late night/early morning hours, then it proves that there is something out there capable of grasping a piece of wood and striking another piece of wood with it, and having the intelligence to understand what/why it was doing. Could it be another person? Possibly. But not likely where we are. As for Sasquatch sleeping in a shelter. The only thing that I have ever found was a crushed "bed" of grass close (within meters) of a sighting report location. But could they make a shelter if they really needed to? I would imagine so. If they knew what the coming weather was bringing and the amount of discomfort they may feel if left exposed. Just because no one has witnessed one crawling out of a shelter all bleary eyed and stiff in the morning does not mean that they do not use shelters. Has anyone ever sighted a Sasquatch while it was relieving itself? If the answer is no, then your line of thinking here would leave this the most constipated creature roaming the woods. I cannot agree with your line of thinking that just because someone has not witnessed this creature doing something, that it does not do it. Alot of the things in this field of research that are taken as "gospel truth" should be reconsidered, perhaps some of them should be put in the Highly Unlikely pile. But they should not be discarded just because someone hasn't witnessed the creature performing the act. I agree with much of what Sean has to say here. I have learned much about the ways of wild animals from other hunters that have gone before me. When someone I trust tells me a tidbit of information on the habits of certain animals that may be beneficial to my hunting success in the future, I usually pay very close attention. If the information helps in the hunt, I file it away to be added the next time it's required. On page 27 of John Green's "Encounters with Bigfoot", I believe Glen Thomas describes seeing a female sasquatch defacte in a stream. " It (the female sasquatch) stepped up on a wide, low stump that was in the water, bent forward about 45 degrees with its knees slightly bent and let fly. It then wiped itself with one hand, and then licked the hand briefly." Ken
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Oct 15, 2008 1:30:50 GMT -5
Ewwww. To much information there, too much information.
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 15, 2008 10:40:01 GMT -5
Sean wrote: For the same reason, Sean, I cannot believe that a sasquatch does do something just because someone says they do, without a shred of evidence to back up such a statement. If a person's initial logic is faulty ( for example..nests ) then all conclusions drawn from that evidence is faulty as well. For instance...you would seem to be ascribing human characteristics to this animal in some people's minds by insinuating that it has some need to build a shelter..or that it is even capable of doing so. Now , to them..it has gone from an intelligent animal to one with almost human traits and cunning intelligence! And all of this is done by evidence which has never stood up to any test. So instead of being a wiley woodland creature..we have now elevated it to a creature of uncanny foresight and intelligence. I am not saying throw out evidence because no one has ever seen a sasquatch associate with such evidence. I am saying that such information should not even be considered as evidence in the first place. Speculation is just fine..but all to often speculation turns into a 'gold' standard in this field. Yesterdays off the cuff remark is tomorrows undeniable proof of sasquatch's existence! The same with call blasting. Only in sasquatch research could two unknowns..sending and receiving calls / noises.. ever create a known...evidence of sasquatch. By the way... Good to see ya posting again! No, I will go and put my nose against that tree for a 'time out'!
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 15, 2008 11:03:25 GMT -5
Interestingly enough the Glen Thomas encounter is spot on in this discussion..let us pick up on the story shortly before Ken's excerpt:
" Next day he went back to where he left off, and while casting aboutfor more tracks, he saw something dark on the (i)snow(/i) across a small open area. Using binoculars at the distance of less then 200 yards, he found himself looking at two sasquatches sleeping in the (i)open(/i) , with their backs to the sky and their knees and elbows drawn in under their bodies. I have since read that convicts put into solitary confinement in Alcatraz without bedding slept exactly in that position to minimize the loss of heat on the cold floor He settled down for a long vigil, and they slept for about an hour, with very little movement. Then one got up and then the other."
After that point is where Ken picked up on the sighting in the previous post.
Now. Here we have an eye witness declaration of how sasquatch sleep in the open with no shelter and do you ever hear people all abuzz in forums discussing this? Hardly! It is seldom if ever mentioned! In the years I have been on forums, I think it onely came up once as a comment by someone..it was never discussed! But you mention sasquatch nests...and until this day it is enough to keep a healthy sized thread going..even though there is no connection what so ever between sasquatch and nests!
In this field..it is like Mark Twain once said about old west heroes.."When the legend becomes fact....print the legend!"
He was right! People's need to add unknown elements to spice up an already interesting story is still very much present today.
|
|
|
Post by yukonred on Oct 15, 2008 13:10:58 GMT -5
Critical thinking is certainly crucial for everyone who conducts any kind of research, especially sasquatch research.
Before stating that a type of "possible evidence" is actual evidence one must take every possible steps and actions to determine what the "possible evidence" is or what the "possible sign" is, be it foot prints, knuckle prints, tree breaks, tree knocks, shelters, vocals, etc...
What is it? Who done it?
It is often too easy to misidentify a possible sign or possible would be evidence for something entirely different, not related to our research.
So, the "what is it or what it possibly may be ?", must be answered first. Without any speculations. Letting the facts (evidence) speak for themselves.
Then, if properly identified, comes the "Who done it ?" And this is the tricky part, as if one did not actually see "Who done it" how can one then say for a fact "Who done it" ?
This is where we stand today, there has been some reports of persons actually observing the "Who done it" in the process of doing it, but very few people actually believe those who have observed the "Who done it". For various reasons.
What is then required ? Proof of some kind, undeniable proof of who done it.
Red
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 15, 2008 14:00:29 GMT -5
I agree Red!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2008 14:43:17 GMT -5
Good points ^
Speculation is an odd thing as it IMHO subtly demonstrates the 'speculators' personal expectation in relating it to our subject. Of course I'd like to be able to tie all of the pieces to our subject however that is the reason I am willing to step away from the speculative connection to sasquatch and observe 'whatever' on it's own until definitive proof that ties together positively things like nests, structures and sounds to this creature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2008 15:59:15 GMT -5
Well, i'm kinda with Sean on this one. I don't think we can rule out a behavior just because we haven't seen the behavior. I'm mindful that most "creatures" out there in the forest do build "nests" of a sort - even if its just bottom up in a field! - in fact i can't really think of any forest creature that doesn't rely on some form of protection from the elements or predators, etc - especially when vulnerable young are present. Most creatures have a way of communicating within their species - of course many forms of communication are speculation - the "half laugh, half whinny" was observed - so we at least know, if the witness is credible (signed an affidavit in this instance), that the creature is capable of using vocal cords I think its terrific that we can share our ideologies, thoughts, and speculations on this board, regardless of the differences! Chrissie
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 15, 2008 21:02:02 GMT -5
Chrissie wrote: Why? If no one has ever witnessed such behavior in a sasquatch..then ..how can it be called sasquatch behavior? ? The logic of what you just said totally escapes me!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2008 22:22:03 GMT -5
LOL...why? jeeeesh... First off maybe it would help you to understand if we used the term "animal behavior" rather than sasquatch behavior, especially when we've limited and often no proof. Here's my rational, much like Sean's. This creature has been seen in very limited eye-witness accounts. These "accounts" are, in and of themselves, very limited. The majority of sightings are of the creature crossing the road, crossing a field towards a tree line - an even smaller record exists of accounts where the creature was actually involved in some activity of daily living. Because we, the people on this board, have limited information, eg. second and third hand accounts, we can really only rely on the interviews taken by those like John Green - we all know his experience is superior, given his work as a newspaper reporter - many of the sightings he had interviewed provide very sound rationale regarding credibility - even Albert Ostman's report was given credibility - in this instance, creatures were seen using a cave as a shelter, and even cedar strips woven together with moss to make "bedding". This would be ONE out of hundreds, maybe even thousands of reports that an eye witness gave such details. Just because Ostman's story seems "far-fetched" does not mean it did not occur. I'm not saying that i know either way - i couldn't possibly know. What i am saying, however, that in keeping an open mind, we are leaving ourselves open to learning about a creature that has so far been pretty darn elusive. It is neither skeptical, nor far fetched to attribute animal behaviors to an animal, assuming we are together on the "assumption" that this creature is an animal. The majority, if not all animals, demonstrate behaviors related to survival - food, protection, offspring - hence, i'm going to go way out on a limb here and maked the assumption they mate, nuts in the woods, eat, and sleep. I am with you that we need evidence, of course. We've all read the same books, relied on all the same eye witness accounts, and assessments related to credibility of accounts. Nobody here, as far as i can see has anything "up" on anybody else - If someone on this board can, with their own background and experience, speculate that cedar stripping can be used by primates for bedding, just for example, why wouldn't we want to explore this idea further - expecially since weve had eyewitness accounts - examine areas of known cedar stripping for any kind of evidence? Ditto with shelters - it would be a cold day in hell before i passed by any kind of makeshift shelter or cave without scrutinizing it for any kind of evidence of sasquatch or any creature! I find this topic really very helpful and welcome the open dialogue! P.S. I've been reading about monkeys and apes and HOLA! If, this creature is even half as "evolved", omg! Chrissie
|
|
|
Post by kootenayspirit on Oct 15, 2008 22:33:15 GMT -5
Chrissie wrote: Why? If no one has ever witnessed such behavior in a sasquatch..then ..how can it be called sasquatch behavior? ? The logic of what you just said totally escapes me! OK...just my 2 cents but, I think maybe we need to call it "suspected behavior" an open mind is our key to finding the necessary evidence. Maybe there is no logic...maybe the sasq. is so smart "he/she" throws us off track...maybe we have the evidence right under our nose's and we have chose to ignore it. It has been reported that children "see" so much more than adults because their mind doesn't have the filtering mechanism that takes place over the years as we get older - kids are more open to things that adults would pass of as rubbish. I know there are a lot of "logistics" that go into finding the evidence we need - time, money, equipment etc...but, I think an open mind is key to finding what we need. Innocent until proven guilty - how about real until proven unreal? We have enough video, personal accounts, sightings and documented history to KNOW there is something out there that resembles what we call a sasquatch...right??
|
|