|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 21, 2008 2:01:03 GMT -5
OK, fair enough, let's see what's out there. I'm not sifting and judging, just putting forth some possible reports, ok? 1. the famous, or infamous, if you want, Ostman report. Report of weaving of cedar bark and dry sphagnum moss to make coverings and so on for sleeping in under a dry cliff-like overhang. Sphagnum moss, by the way, was used by the Coastal Indians for just such a purpose, and also as absorbent diaper material. Yes, Otsman .... he has several problems in his story, not to mention that he claims to have not told anyone of his alleged kidnapping for 30 years following the event. These mats were reported by Ostman to have already been there when he was brought to that spot. He did not witness the creatures weaving them. If there is any truth in his story, then would it not make more sense that if the old man was in the habit of picking things up that he happened upon and taking them home, then he probably did the same with the mats.
Tom Steenburg speculates that it is possible that Ostman described forest materials that the creatures gathered and laid on the ground for bedding and over time they had flattened them together. That their appearance to Otsman could not be described in any way other than saying they had the look of being woven.John Bindernagel is a nice fellow and I have heard the things he has said, but even he is supposing that these branches being clustered together is Sasquatch related. I know of no hair of any unknown primates being found in these alleged nest, no tracks found in and around them. Certainly no one has walked up on a Sasquatch in one of them.
The 14 year old girl story only implies that something had bedded in the grass. Gee, let's see ... cows close by ... deer are seen near cows at times .... Must be sasquatch related for sure. (sigh~) [/quote] 4. Same web site, as follows: "The above three photographs were taken from an article in the BFRO website by Kathy Moskowitz. She says “On May 13, 2001, three unusual structures constructed of natural materials were located above Sonora, California. Due to their size, shape, construction, and association with recently purported Sasquatch activity, these structures may be related to the occupation of an unknown hominid in the area."
"Although two of the nests were incomplete and unused, the third nest was well constructed and appeared to have been recently used.”3[/quote] I have spent time with the BFRO when they were here. I took them around and showed them Ruby Creek from atop of the mountain. There are some members there that attribute everything they see as Sasquatch related ... so much so that other members there tend to agree that its taken to extremes at times. I stopped several times when I was taking some of them around so they could look at a few sticks laying close to one another. Talk of those sticks being the starting of a possible Sasquatch nest were considered and discussed amongst themselves. At one point I was asked what I thought about the alleged partially built nest and I replied, 'If those are the makings of a nest, then the Sasquatch must start a lot of projects that it never finishes! (smile~)The next time someone comes up on a so-called nest ... let them place a trip camera near by.
And about the Glen Thomas thing ... I had Steenburg check his copy of that story and it said that the creatures were laying in the open ... and on the ground with trees nearby.
Bigfoothuntr
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Oct 21, 2008 12:12:10 GMT -5
OK, this is a typical case of trying to make the data (a sighting) fit into the box of your theory. Let's just take the Ostman story as is, for now, until we have more data, shall we? There are loads of stories that don't come out until a lot of time has passed, for many reasons. We don't reject them offhand for only that reason.
My understanding is that John Green took down the Ostman story, considering Osman a reliable source. The main reason that people have rejected it since then is exactly this reason, that it doesn't fit into their pet theories about sasquatches! But it is a rare account of a sasquatch semi-permanent living area. We don't have so many of them. Perhaps sasquatch are, like early humans were, for the most part, wanderers, but with a few places that were considered home base. Maybe Ostman was brought to one of these home bases, and all the others people have seen, including the account of sasquatch sleeping in the snow, are very transitional.
If you think about and apply human culture to these kinds of things, you realize that in the early days of hunting and gathering, you'd come across a lot of hunters and gatherers out wandering alone or in very small groups who would make a temporary camp or even sleep rough on a hunting or gathering foray.
The one main difference is that our vulnerability to predators means we are more likely to build a fire and get some kind of shelter, whereas these big guys don't need to. But they still may have a home base of sorts where the babies are raised and so forth, which is located high in remote mountainous areas away from people.
After all, the steeper the grade, the less likely it is that people are going to come bother you. And rocky barren areas are not going to have a lot of animals traversing them. But sasquatch with their amazing ability to traverse terrain can easily descend the mountain to forage and hunt, returning often.
Doesn't this tie in with the aboriginal accounts of them?
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 21, 2008 19:32:41 GMT -5
OK, this is a typical case of trying to make the data (a sighting) fit into the box of your theory. Let's just take the Ostman story as is, for now, until we have more data, shall we? There are loads of stories that don't come out until a lot of time has passed, for many reasons. We don't reject them offhand for only that reason. My understanding is that John Green took down the Ostman story, considering Osman a reliable source. The main reason that people have rejected it since then is exactly this reason, that it doesn't fit into their pet theories about sasquatches! But it is a rare account of a sasquatch semi-permanent living area. We don't have so many of them. Perhaps sasquatch are, like early humans were, for the most part, wanderers, but with a few places that were considered home base. Maybe Ostman was brought to one of these home bases, and all the others people have seen, including the account of sasquatch sleeping in the snow, are very transitional. If you think about and apply human culture to these kinds of things, you realize that in the early days of hunting and gathering, you'd come across a lot of hunters and gatherers out wandering alone or in very small groups who would make a temporary camp or even sleep rough on a hunting or gathering foray. The one main difference is that our vulnerability to predators means we are more likely to build a fire and get some kind of shelter, whereas these big guys don't need to. But they still may have a home base of sorts where the babies are raised and so forth, which is located high in remote mountainous areas away from people. After all, the steeper the grade, the less likely it is that people are going to come bother you. And rocky barren areas are not going to have a lot of animals traversing them. But sasquatch with their amazing ability to traverse terrain can easily descend the mountain to forage and hunt, returning often. Doesn't this tie in with the aboriginal accounts of them? This isn't a matter of someone having their story told on the record many years after the fact, but rather someone who claimed not to have ever told his story to anyone until 30+ years after this unbelievable event. If Otsman story were true, then one would think that for no other reason that he would have wanted to warn others so that such an occurrence would possibly happen to them with maybe a different and tragic outcome. If the story was just a fable written to entertain, then of course there would be no reason to report the event.
The notion that Otsman was taken to a Sasquatches home or even its summer home so-to-speak is a bit off-the-wall in my view. Other than a valley that had a stream running through it, an out cropping of rocks, there is nothing about his story that indicates that this was the Sasquates home ... no 'Home Sweet Home' on the doormat ... no family mementos laying around ... nothing.
This story gets so absurd that one has to wonder if any of it is true. Otsman talked like he thought that he was brought there to mate with the young female (maybe wishful thinking on his part). The nice touch was that it was the boy who was more interested in Otsman, so should we start a thread on speculating if there are gay Sasquatches???
The babies are maybe raised high in the mountains and yet a couple of years ago it was reported by some fishermen near Harrison lake that they witnessed a female Sasquatch and her baby drinking at a river at the top of the lake. 90% of sightings state that they saw a lone Sasquatch, thus not much data to support the supposition that these creatures live in family units.
As far as the Sasquatch living up high Vs. low ... utter speculation! Nearly all sightings by people are in the lower climates. Many more sightings seem to occur in the day, but some at night, thus do we speculate that the Sasquatch never goes home ... it mostly wanders the lower climate areas looking to 'forage and hunt'
What aboriginal accounts are we talking about ... the ones where the Sasquatch was actual seen or the ones that have had a cultural spin put to them whereas the Sasquatch shape-shifts and turns into other animals. (sigh~)
In closing I will add that John Green has a lot of Otsman's stories for Otsman thought of himself as quite the writer. However, Green says one has to have a lot of patience to read them and feels that they were obviously not true stories.
Let me add something else that Otsman said and maybe Chrissie can correct me if I have misstated something pertaining to Otsman on this point. Otsman said that he lost the feeling in his legs as he was carried for hours. I believe Chrissie told me that one couldn't go very long without having the feeling in their legs due to their circulation being cut off. I believe she said that it wouldn't take long for the lower extremities to start to die.
I would love to believe that Otsman's story was completely true, but he simply said things that do not add up and even if part of his story was true, then its no good as data because no one knows what part is true and what part is pure fiction. Let me ask the reader this ... maybe Otsman didn't tell anyone his story for 30 years because he hadn't written yet - think about it!
Bigfoothunter
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Oct 22, 2008 19:29:19 GMT -5
Yeah, it would be nice if it was true, it would be nice if Sasquatches are real, too. I still don't have any personal proof, other than a few "likely" footprints I've seen, and quite a lot of stories of sightings. But I would love to be convinced. lol Can you tell?
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 22, 2008 20:00:55 GMT -5
Yeah, it would be nice if it was true, it would be nice if Sasquatches are real, too. I still don't have any personal proof, other than a few "likely" footprints I've seen, and quite a lot of stories of sightings. But I would love to be convinced. lol Can you tell? ;D Maybe less time spent speculating about the Sasquatch and more time in the bush might help. In 2003, I saw a Sasquatch off of Lake Harrison.
Bigfoothunter
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Oct 23, 2008 1:50:48 GMT -5
Yes, it would, and I would love to. However as mom of 5 time presses. I go when I can.
|
|
|
Post by yukonred on Oct 23, 2008 11:15:41 GMT -5
Well Bigfoothunter, please do tell us about your 2003 sighting by Harrison Lake.
Red
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 23, 2008 13:46:35 GMT -5
You have to be more forthcoming then to just have a skeptical slant to your views to exercise critical thinking.! There are two basic camps if you give any credence to the existence of this creature. In one camp you have people who believe that the creature has a common ancestry with humans. In the other camp you have people who believe that the creature shares a common ancestry with apes and gorillas. And each camp's bias clings on to so called evidence if it suits their stance on the subject.
One camp gloms onto anything which might put a human face and intelligence to this creature. Why? Because of any evidence to the fact? No! Because we cannot admit to ourselves that we are too stupid to capture this animal. We are too arrogant about our place and position on this planet to ever entertain the idea that this creature has just has enough smarts to make monkeys out of us!
Then there are those who think of this creature as an ape...hence nests shelters, tree knocks...etc! It is as dangerous to look for ape traits in this creature as it is for one to look for human traits. For this creature is obviously neither! You cannot use only the evidence which fits your theories.
Apes and gorillas do not swim! Yet! One of the hottest areas for sasquatch sightings is South West Alaska made up totally of small islands...and up the BC coastline. There are many dozens of reports of squatch being able to swim quite smoothly and with great speed. That subject is pretty much ignored because it does nothing for the ape theory followers!
The benevolent giant! The human like creature who looks after his little wards in the bush. Who stands with great curiosity and watches women at campsite..and who fauns...at a distance...over children at play. Surely there is a human souls in there somewhere...some sort of a bonding must be happening for this creature to act this way in reports. All of this speculation comes about because of a need to put a human face to this creature. To be so evasive and yet so caring is surely a sign of human like intelligence!
I prefer to call it like it is! The fact that apes cannot swim and that sasquatch can as though it were second nature to them, makes comparing this creature to apes and gorillas as scientific as comparing a gourd to a watermelon! You cannot just use the facts which fit and bolster...you also have to profess the facts which do not fit and show that you are on shaky ground here by making comparisons!
For the pro human camp. IF this were some other creature watching women in a camp..or lurking near children at play showing a familiarity with people's presence it would be hunted down and shot dead. The humanity has to be put on the face of sasquatch because not to would mean that the creature is exercising stalking behavior
Critical thinking is more then just taking a stance and defending it against all comers. Just as important as the stance you take..is why you are taking that stance, and understanding it! That is critical thinking. Or even if you take no stance at all can be critical thinking, as well.
|
|
|
Post by yukonred on Oct 24, 2008 1:04:05 GMT -5
Well Gerry, you are bringing subjects of thought and certainly thought provoking.
In my views, sasquatch is intelligent, has family traits, do use some homo sapiens qualities and beside being somewhat curious is also somewhat unsure of us ''homo sapiens sapiens".
Of the multitude of reports from the Yukon, there are a few relating to family units. One from 2002 related to a male, a female and a baby being held by the female. One from 2008 relates to a male and a pregnant female. Both in the early part of the month of July.
Is there something there ?
Please do not ask me for locations, I have an agreement with WCSRO not to disclose such locations, as being part of that group, I only share with the group. Anyone wanting to know details should join that research organization.
Now if, and probably when, some folks on this forum will come up and say things like"where is the proof", or "show it" or "prove it" or whatever... I should mention that I am an almost full time researcher, that is I spent at least 75% of time my time researching the sasquatch related or possibly related activities in the Yukon.
I do get a lot of information that may or may not be related to sasquatch activities. Part of my work is to figure out what is actual activities and what it not. What is a possible activity signs and what is not.
In any case, as I have mentioned before, unless one has absolute proof to an extraordinary occurrence or encounter, one should not put a "label" on something that may not be what they may wish it may be.
Well, enough for now.
Red
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 19:33:10 GMT -5
Thanks for the post, YukonRed I'm way too far away to even think to ask for locations - besides, i really respect the commitment you have towards the research you conduct and the organization you belong to. I am interested in pursuing a similar line of study - in the southern interior. I had been curious to know about the different types of environments and climates associated to sightings and will certainly peruse the webpage or your organization if available. Thanks again, Chrissie
|
|
|
Post by yukonred on Oct 24, 2008 22:59:38 GMT -5
Thank you Chrissie,
Our environment here in the Yukon is quite diffrent from the southern interior of BC.
Our present climate is changing, probably much too fast, we are blaming it on the "climate change", that we all talk about.
Check out the Yukon web site for details.
As for the WCSRO website, you just go to Western Canadian Sasquatch Research Organization to get on it and follow the links...you will find this site on it, amongst others.
But the forum aspect is for members only.
But there are at least five of us, that I know of, that do partake in discussions on this forum.
And they may acknowledge that themselves if they so chose.
I must mention that I really appreciate the exchange of ideas and the communication that takes place in the open forum.
In a friendly, decent and respectful manner.
Cheers,
Red
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 25, 2008 0:08:44 GMT -5
I have spoken to anthropologist and have been told that there has been no evidence found that humans were ever nocturnal. However, it is animals that are nocturnal. Animals have eye shine - humans do not. The Sasquatch has been reported to have eye-shine.
Bigfoothunter
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Oct 25, 2008 0:23:21 GMT -5
Well for me the strongest witness to this creature being close to human is the foot structure. I'm not as convinced by warm fuzzies. I agree there could be stalking or at least fascination. I theorized elsewhere that for them young are much rarer and get killed off more often, because the females and children fend for themselves and are not protected like in our family units, with our differentiation of roles (hunter vs. gatherer). It seems the females with babies in tow simply keep getting their own food, isn't that right? I'm not convinced they're nocturnal. There are plenty of daytime sightings of them feeding and going about their everyday business. Though some report higher activity during full moon nights. Oh, and as for marine apes/monkeys, well, the Proboscis Monkey of Southeast Asia swims far out to sea, between islands, and climbs aboard ocean-going boats when it gets tired. It is quite a big monkey, too. Interestingly enough, it is quite often bipedal when wading in water. This in my mind links amphibian behavior and development of bipedalism. "The Proboscis Monkey lifestyle is both arboreal and amphibious, with its mangrove swamp and riverine environment containing forest, dry land, shallow water allowing wading, and deep water requiring swimming. Like other similar monkeys, the Proboscis Monkey climbs well. It is also a proficient swimmer, often swimming from island to island, and has been picked up by fishing boats in open ocean a mile from shore. While wading, the monkey uses an upright posture, with the females carrying infants on their hip. Troops have been filmed continuing to walk upright, in single file, along forest trails when they emerge on land, the only non-human mammal, with the exception of gibbons and giant pangolins, known to use this form of locomotion for any length of time." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proboscis_Monkey
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Oct 25, 2008 0:41:39 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 8:42:10 GMT -5
The foot prints, along with dermal ridges - certainly do place a lot of weight on the "human" aspect of this dialogue, when compared to any other species. DNA of hair samples is another biggie for me.
I can't, however, attribute warm and fuzzy or caring human characteristics to claims of sasquatch seen observing kids playing, etc. I think we've got a hard enough time speculating about subjective human thoughts and feelings without trying to attribute similar motivations to a creature we know virtually nothing about. Curiosity? perhaps, but that would be difficult at this point as well - now if a highly experienced field researcher were to describe behaviors that demonstrated curiosity, or even "caring" for that matter, i'd be more inclined to attribute either one of those characteristics to the above mentioned scenario.
In a besides the point, I also enjoy the open forums and the ideas shared in a respectful manner - i'm a proponent of diversity - so many ideas coming from so many different backgrounds really helps to enrich all of our experiences and helps to broaden some pretty narrow scopes. I truly believe that when we narrow our perspective and cement our ideas we are incable of seeing and observing objectively - and this creature in all of its elusiveness deserves our objectivity and open-mindedness.
|
|