Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2008 22:36:01 GMT -5
p.s. i don't think building nests/shelters relies on what i perceive to be human characteristics squirrels, birds, beavers, etc make forest abodes. Now deer, who i don't think actually make "shelters" rely on the natural protection of the forest in finding a "home" - actually there's some food for thought ...
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 16, 2008 12:58:43 GMT -5
Chrissie wrote: I think it would be more responsible to use neither...and just state it for what it really is...wild speculation! Yup! And for that reason people just fill in the blanks with their own imagination. To even consider Ostman's story as an actual event requires a leap of faith! One thing you have to know is that people lie. All the time! No matter who does the interview. I would not put much belief in any one story. But even in the Ostman tale there is no report of sasquatch building a shelter! You just covered all of the alegedly known things about this creature. The rest is man made speculation, upon which others build cases to give this creature almost human like intelligence and other human traits. It would be good if people stopped there, but that would be boring to many! If you are inferring that I have the 'up' on anybody else..you could not be more wrong. I don't have enough information to prove that the creature even exists..let alone have the up on anyone else as to how it might live! Anyone can speculate about anything...just do not call oddities evidence of sasquatch habitat, or anything else unless you have cooberative evidence, is what I am saying..or you are just muddying the waters. As for your comments on birch bark..I do not recall anyone relating this oddity to sasquatch involvement. Not me. Not canadian..so I miss your point on bringing that one up. I agree!
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 16, 2008 13:17:01 GMT -5
kootenayspirit wrote: It all depends on your reason for being involved, I think. "real until proven unreal.." is not a way to influence others, if you are out to prove the creature exists. If you just want to prove this creature to yourself..then that is different. But most of the people who frequent forums like this want to prove that sasquatch is the real thing. Your comment about looking at things as a child 'unfiltered' is what the American Indian has done for centuries. There is not a tribe in North America which does not believe in some form of sasquatch..or big hairy wildman. To them it is a no brainer. It exists! But they are not out to prove this fact to anyone. There is no need, or urgency for such. Curiously enough it has only been the white man who wants to categorize, identify and expose this creature. Why? For a greater good? For fame? For noteriety? For money? Curiousity? And the only way this can be done is by bringing forth evidence..scientifically collected, with a sound scientific logic in how the process was carried out. Speculation will never do this. Open minded? Yes!On a selective nature? That would be prudent. This whole field has been mired in useless garbage of the mind for many decades...and if this hunt were carried out on a scientific basis.....many would drop out. Why? Because it would be as boring as hell. Slow! Plodding! Organized and meticulous! And that has never been the sasquatch researcher's way.
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 16, 2008 13:27:03 GMT -5
You know what I found the most interesting? I presented a report where not..one..but..two female sasquatch were observed for over an hour sleeping out in the open on snow covered ground. And even detailed the position in which they slept. Apparently no one found this to be amazing enough to comment on, but instead chose to stick up for the right to hold on to their belief..or possibility ..unsubstantiated as though it might be....that sasquatch builds shelters! It has always been a hallmark of sasquatch research that once a bell is rung..by putting forth a presumption..accompanied by no cooberating evidence, that is accepted by the community....it is almost impossible to unring it by presenting contradictory evidence! So much for open mindedness!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2008 13:32:04 GMT -5
LMAO!! First off, it isn't "wild speculation" that all creatures, eat, poop, reproduce, and protect themselves!! Too funny!! It doesn't take a wild imagination to assume that all creatures exist within their habitat primarily for the purpose of survival and reproduction - grade 5 science. It is your right to consider "Ostman's" story with whatever veiw you wish. I've read about all there is to read about this particular story, relied on the assessments of credibility from those with over half a century of experience, both in the field and in taking statements and still can not find many if any "holes" in his story. Keeping an open mind on that one, although I admit it is wildly "far fetched" on its face value. Regardless, it's my right to think what i wish as well. Your views are respected, i would hope mine are respected as well. The "allegedly known" things about this creature are primarily specualtion and assumption, much of which was aquired in grade five science class (see above) The other behaviors, the ones i think you are pointing out are related to tree banging, rock banging, rock throwing, making nests, making bedding, etc etc - are certainly speculation, although i wouldn't say a particurly wild imagination is essential for speculating these types of behavior - and many of these behaviors do have some basis in the odd eye witness testimony. Not sure if ive ever read about anybody ever actually seeing actual evidence of tree banging. I'm actually a little bit curious now about your thoughts on "intelligence"? I tend to think that there is a distinct difference between human characteristics and intelligence. I actually think animals rely on a type of "intelligence" no longer accessible to the human brain, in addition to supporting an ideology that supports different types of intelligence. Bottom line for me, is if people want to venture out and scrutinize the environments for "evidence" of any one of the mentioned "behaviors", who are we to stop them from anything? Coming from a scientific background, it is pretty obvious that we would require a whole lot more than "speculation" prior to honestly attributing any behavior to the elusive sasquatch. Do i think we need to actually "observe" the creature demonstrating the behavior? No, i do not - there are a variety of different methods at our disposal for examining evidence - foot prints, dermage ridges, hair samples, etc. Chrissie
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 16, 2008 16:21:55 GMT -5
Chrissie wrote:
Never said it was! What I said was that 'sasquatch behavior'...or 'animal behavior'..when used on a sasquatch is merely speculation, as we know nothing about its true behavior...except to the few things you mentioned! Remember to keep what I say in context.
I never said it did. I was speaking only of evidence put forth as sasquatch related. I can't see the point you are making. I may be missing something, if I am I do apoligize.
The problem with the Ostman story is that it is very full of holes, right in the area where it counts the most. And that is a definitive location where these events occured. His description of terrain traveled does not match up with the actual topography of the area . As for your belief..or my beliefs..I would like to think that we are indeed free to express them and have them respected. I am not stating things with peoples feelings in mind..just with regard to the quality of evidence. Weak evidence is weak evidence, no matter whose mouth it comes out of. Opinions have nothing to do with facts if the facts are wrong then the opinion based on such facts is a faulty stance. If anything, I try to be very careful about the construction block that I use to build a case about anything. I fail to see why this topic brings out such defensiveness in people. Everybody should want the best evidence available in order to form an opinion on the subject.
Actually none of these..alleged..behaviors have an eye witness account to back them up! In the six years that I have been researching reports and talking to researchers the world over..not once did I ever come across a report of a witness to these behaviors. Save for the one mentioned earlier in this thread Mr. Thomas of Oregon who observed the creatures overturning rocks looking for rodents. This merely proves that they do indeed handle rocks.
Anything sentient..which has 'self awareness' is intelligent! I have never read, or seen anything to make me think that sasquatch harbors any more intelligence that any animal peer...bear..elk..moose! It is human-like only in form..and that is the total sum of knowledge of what I know of the creature. I wish I could say more..but that is it!
I do not know where you are coming from! I never inferred for a moment that people should stop doing anything!! Again the defensiveness! Investigate what you will! But to seek evidence of behavior when there is no proof of such behavior to start with..is to build a house of straw. And any conclusions that you will draw from this evidence is faulty. For the basis is faulty.
That is rather a contradictory stance...when you have made all of your arguments in this thread on the alleged 'observations' of others.
None of those things can replace the wealth of information by a long observation period of the creature..as done by Clayton Thomas...and Thomas Roe!
Of course..all of this is my own humble opinion!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2008 17:19:24 GMT -5
Well...actually you did : Chrissie wrote: Quote: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. Gerry wrote: I think it would be more responsible to use neither...and just state it for what it really is...wild speculation! Again, i disagree that attributing common "animal" behaviors to any animal, eg shelter, food, elimination, survival, reproduction can be very well described as wild speculation. Ive no intention of taking what youve written out of context, and certainly do apologize if it appears that i did to you! Listen, Gerry, seems we are on the same side of the argument as it relates to research. My only intention for responding to your post is to point out that an open mind is essential and that sometimes it seems as though you are hard on people who have different thoughts or ideas related to their own journey in searching out the elusive. Youve made some really good points, for example 'observation' is a valid research tool! We differ on credibility related to some of the "eye witness" accounts, however, i don't see that being really relevant to what it seems we're arguing? I noticed that you didn't give any credence to "rock" throwing either? Would the recent incident up at Ruby Creek not speak to that issue, especially given the eye witness account? Nor the Ape "Canyon" story as it relates to rock throwing? Just curious. By your own logic, it would seem that that particular behavior is can be deemed "characteristic" of sasquatch behavior due to eye witness statements. I haven't contradicted myself in any way - being skeptical, to me, can imply that i haven't closed my mind to the evidence one way or another. Do i beleive that all of the above characteristics COULD be related to sasquath, sure i do. Do i believe they ARE related - like you, without some sort of validatable, measurable, evidence, i can not say they ARE. BUT, i haven't ruled them out just because I haven't seen that evidence. Full Circle! Chrissie
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2008 17:28:08 GMT -5
p.s. I wonder if people don't search out such phenomenon as "rock throwing, tree smacking, shelters, etc to ante up the odds of actually running into one of these creatures. Same reason you or i would stick to riverbeds and areas that seem abundant with food or fish - it seems to give a sense of upping the odds of observing footprints, or other evidence of sasquatch. I for one, find a variety of places and times, and often rationalize why they might have a better chance - despite understanding it's really likely just luck or chance, as far as anybody states so far. That is exactly why i'm working on this data base - i want to learn which habitats, which plants, which time of the year, etc etc etc - hopefully a pattern will shine through!! This type of research may have an impact on the types of questions to ask eye witnesses...just my thoughts. Chrissie
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2008 18:56:51 GMT -5
Well I would have to say Sasquatch is not a animal, If he was he would have been hunted and caught like other animals, They do twist trees and bend them, They do have beds but not in the open, on rocky cliff areas, And yes I have seen these, and My friend and I have seen a juvunile make the whooping sound, So if you belive or not who cares, If you dont get out in those mountains all the time, Then your out of luck they wont come close or let you know there there unless they know you better, Also if you dont belive they make rock stacks and do other things then give up Squatching. They do gifting back and forth if they want, and if you leave apples and they only take the red ones and leave the green ones, It is a squatch not a bear, a bear will eat them all, as other animals do, Squatch is smart, Not a dumb animal.
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Oct 16, 2008 19:27:56 GMT -5
OK, so there is a report of sasquatch not using a shelter. Big deal. There are reports of sasquatch emerging from shelters, caves etc. Unfortunately that does not rule out the possibility that either, or both, could be true. Maybe for some areas sasquatch have learned the behaviour of using shelters, and other areas they have not. Maybe some times of the year sasquatch use shelters, and other times not. Maybe they only use shelters if they have children with them. Maybe they only use them in certain areas where they have traditionally used them. Unfortunately one sighting does not a rule make. We simply do not know enough about these creatures to make rules of any kind yet. It is ALL speculation at this point until remains are found that confirm this creature to science. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 16, 2008 23:20:29 GMT -5
In no where... is the slightest bit of evidence... that sasquatch has ever even so much as laid two saplings together! Let alone made a shelter! It is as simple as that! No more....or no less! Anything else is wishful thinking! And to a great degree..vilnori...you are quite correct!
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 16, 2008 23:27:23 GMT -5
villnori wrote: It is a very very big deal!!!! It means that here we have a first hand account of a creature that is not adverse to living out in the cold during winter months!! Just like a bison it hunkers down into a position to make the most of its body heat! And it does so without any hindrance to its daily routine as stated in the observations of Clayton Thomas! How out of touch do you have to be on this subject to think that this is just a mildly interesting foot note to the sasquatch panacea? I don't believe it!!!! Is not this gentleman's testimony which was recorded by John Green on two occasions..about two seperate events not note worthy...as opposed to some anonymous contributer stating that they saw a sasquatch crawling out of a cave...or some wooded shelter? Personally..I would like very much for you to provide us with these actual reports! It is too easy to say that this and that happened...cuz..I read it somewhere! If you state such things as facts...then back it up with your sources so it can be scrutinized by the readers here in this forum! I think that it is time that people were asked to back up what they say with a source for their comments!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2008 0:54:14 GMT -5
Re the sleeping unsheltered, it is something I've thought about often while staring out the window here during one of our 'normal' wet winter days. How does this creature take shelter from the elements, does it require shelter as such and must consider that as a creature that lives and has survived here for who knows how long, it must be adapted to our climate and have within it's own 'instincts/know-how/' the means to either use or not use shelter. I would hazard that sasquatch is a pretty hardy creature and lets also consider that it's taken years and years of careful observation to learn what we know about the apes we know of compared to the frustrating short time frame of most sasquatch sightings. I'd give both my eyeballs to watch a squatch for an uninterrupted hour Ok, so I lied about the 'both' bit.
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 17, 2008 12:00:11 GMT -5
Yo yell the truth canadian, I do not get hung up on the shelter idea. The more time I spend in their habitat and observe the terrain, one thing occurs to me. The creatures are like tanks..they can go where they want when they want..and they do not need to use shortcuts to do so. I think that all notions of migratory routs is pure bunkhem! They have those muscles for a reason...they are lords of their domain and do not let weather, or direction affect their spontaneity They can just as easily climb over a mountain as walk around one. And according to reports often do! By the way..very interesting stuff with the cedar bark! .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2008 16:48:44 GMT -5
^re cedar bark. The 'only' reasons I speculate about it in relation to the hairy fella would be a mention about 'crude cedar strip blankets' (possibly Ostman story) AND the fact that the tree shows bark 'manipulation' up to 30feet high (and sasquatchs' formidable stature).
I'll keep my eyes peeled (no pun intended) and continue to look at these trees, however will not make any connections until more and definitive information comes along.
|
|