|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 25, 2008 10:11:00 GMT -5
"I'm not convinced they're nocturnal. There are plenty of daytime sightings of them feeding and going about their everyday business. "
You missed the point. Obviously many sightings have occurred in the daylight. The term 'nocturnal' means that these animals can see in the dark. Animals that have this capability have eye-shine. As I tried to state ... no human being has been known to have nocturnal capabilities. Animals have this capability. I have gotten this information from both Grover Kratntz and Jeff Meldrum independently from one another.
Bigfoothunter
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 25, 2008 10:17:08 GMT -5
Apes have dermal ridges.
Speculation has its place, but that depends on what its based on. Throwing dung at a wall and seeing what sticks isn't research. For instance, the creatures that Otsman told about were near a outcropping of a rock ledge, but somehow through speculation it has gone from that to living in a cave and weaving mats.
Bigfoothunter
|
|
|
Post by yukonred on Oct 25, 2008 13:26:02 GMT -5
I see what you are saying Bigfoothunter; how a story is often turned around somewhat and speculations become part of the story.
I just went back to the story that Albert Oatsman told to John Green and here is what he said to Green while trying to describe where he was;
" I could see now that I was in a small valley or basin about eight or ten acres, surrounded by high mountains, on the southeast side there was a V-shaped opening about eight feet wide at the bottom and about twenty feet high at the higest point- that must be the way I came in. "
Oatsman later says; " The ground was leaning towards the opening in the wall. There must be water at the upper end of this valley, there is green grass and moss along the bottom. "
Then he mentions going for water; " Right at the head under a cliff there was a lovely spring that disappeared underground. "
On returning he says; " On my way back I noticed where these people were sleeping. On the east side wall of this valley was a shelf in the mountain side, with overhanging rock, looking something like a big undercut in a big tree about 10 feet deep and 30 feet wide. The floor was covered with lots of dry moss, and they had some kind of blankets woven with narrow strips of cedar bark, patched with dry moss. They looked very practical and warm-with no need of washing. "
So what is he actually describing ? A cave ? Not likely, as I would describe a cave as a hole in the side of a mountain, going deep into the mountain. That is not what he described.
He said an opening in the side of the mountain like a big undercut of 10 X 30 ft with an overhanging piece of rock.
Not a cave, an opening in the side of the mountain.
And he does mention "... some kind of blankets woven of narrow strips of cedar bark... "
What to make of that; is the question.
What I see happening is that each time this story is described, the interpretation is somewhat different and speculations are addedd to explain various elements of the story.
There is, in itself, nothing wrong with speculating on the interpretation of things, as long as it clear that what one advances is SPECULATIONS.
And that goes for any reports of occurrences and encounters related to sasquatch.
Speculation has a place in the interpretation of unknown activities, its a theory, an idea to be shared and discussed, not a statement of facts.
Hope I did not confuse the point too much.
Red
|
|
|
Post by yukonred on Oct 25, 2008 13:35:06 GMT -5
Just noticed that I mispelled OTSMAN, my apology !
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Oct 25, 2008 14:23:52 GMT -5
Well his story does describe sasquatches (who he called "these people") using a shelter (not a cave, but an overhang providing a dry place away from wind) and using material culture (woven cedar bark blankets with moss, looking practical and warm). To speculate that these were stolen from native peoples is ad hoc (an after the fact explanation in support of your particular conclusion). Clearly Ostman's view is of these as a different kind of people, perhaps giants of some kind. He does not assume the coverings were provided by humans, his assumption seems to be that they made them.
Bill's statement was that there are NO sightings or reports that support the idea that they use, make or even need shelter, since in the sighting he describes, they were sleeping right on the snow in the middle of the open. By the way, how cold was it? Depending on how cold it is, even Musk Oxen will make a shelter of sorts with their own bodies. Penguins too. Lots of animals burrow into snow, which is a fine insulator from cold in and of itself. How far hunkered down in the snow were these sasquatches?
Also, about night vision. As a child I lived in Africa and ran around with my friends all day long. Since it was the tropics the sun went down every day promptly at 6 PM. I was caught out in the dark very often before I could get home, and there were no lights other than people's fires. Our home was lit by generator-fed electricity but I was often very far from home. I learned that I could see very well in the dark, except for moon-less nights, in which it became almost pitch black. On those nights I got home by memory and by feel. White people in North America have just forgotten how to see in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 25, 2008 19:29:55 GMT -5
The WCSRO is readily linked on the main page of West Coast Sasquatch..and has been since this site's conception. I am wondering if anybody actually looks at the West Coast website..or just comes here to the forum which is only a part of it all?
vilnoori wrote:
Actually you will find that I made that point many pages back when Ken brought up the David Clayton encounter about seeing one in a stream using the bathroom. This seeing the two females in the sonw sleeping led up to this event! How cold it was is rather irrelevant! Even if you knew what could you make of it, except for more speculation? The interesting point here is that they did it! And for all intents they did it. not out of necessity but just because they felt comfortable doing so!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 19:39:10 GMT -5
Hey there Gerry, I honestly haven't used the links to other pages much from this site - i've been linked to some of Ken's work on this site and follow lots of other links from other sites. As well, i've read through many of the links on the main page. I mostly read the forum to keep up to date - albiet, i even read the forum now with selection. Chrissie
|
|
|
Post by yukonred on Oct 25, 2008 21:06:38 GMT -5
I do check out WCS on a regular basis, and it is appreciated that the WCSRO is on your link, as WCS is on ours.
Except that WCS has sort of miswrote our organization's name to "Western Canada Research Organization" instead of "Western Canadian Sasquatch Research Organization".
Which actually does not really matter, as the link links up anyway.
Beside, we are in the process of removing the "Western" part of the name anyway. Simply to acknowledge that we are Canadian in all sense of the word and not restricted to only Western Canada.
Cheers Gerry,
Red
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 26, 2008 4:29:58 GMT -5
Actually you will find that I made that point many pages back when Ken brought up the David Clayton encounter about seeing one in a stream using the bathroom. This seeing the two females in the snow sleeping led up to this event! How cold it was is rather irrelevant! Even if you knew ... what could you make of it, except for more speculation? The interesting point here is that they did it! And for all intents they did it not out of necessity, but just because they felt comfortable doing so! You are correct ... more speculation will not help anyone. The creatures were reported to be laying on snow ... Otsman's alleged encounter happened in the summer if I recall right.
I would also like to address something said about how people can see in the dark ... Peoples eyes can adjust to the dark, but that does not mean that they have nocturnal vision. Prof. Meldrum obviously understood the issues when he said that there has been no evidence that man has ever had nocturnal vision. That nocturnal vision is an animal trait.
Bigfoothunter
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Oct 26, 2008 15:35:14 GMT -5
dark adaptiveness is a very quick thing to develop, it can arise independently in any species. See, for example, the many types of cave-dwelling animals that exist in all their miriad types. Just because people are not dark-adapted doesn't mean they couldn't be, and in evolutionary timelines, very quickly too.
|
|
|
Post by yukonred on Oct 26, 2008 18:16:22 GMT -5
I agree that human can adapt to darkness, not really having nocturnal vision, but can adapt.
When I was serving in the Canadian Army, before the days of night vision equipments, we specifically trained in the dark in order to adapt to the darkness. And it worked, with some limitations of course.
Red
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2008 18:46:10 GMT -5
Hello So..i just gotta ask - What is nocturnal vision? I thought cats are the only creatures that really have vision, rather, eyes, that have developed in a way that they can actually see in the dark - the rest of us "creatures" pretty much rely on adaptions - both to sight and other senses - eg. hearing. I've heard people describe sasquatch as "nocturnal" but this can not be correct as nocturnal animals sleep all day and party all night - and where does the "eye shine" come into the equation? Inquiring minds want to know Chrissie
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 26, 2008 21:14:43 GMT -5
The red eye shine has no basis in reality..it just showed up in a couple of reports! A couple of reports out of thousands of reports! People have debated that the creature might have infrared eye sight..which means that they can emit light from their eyes on a level which cannot be seen by the human eye. If this is sio then why do some people claim to have seen it! It makes no sense what so ever!
Nocturnal vision is directly related to the number of rods contained in the creature's eye..to make a complicated explanation very simple! Night hunters have this. Not all animals who come out at night have this. It means that they can absorb more natural lighting through their eyes,then non-nocturnal creatures, thereby giving them a brighter vision of what they are seeing. This is not infrared! It is just enhanced vision! It is this plenitude of rods which seem to give these creatures eye shine...which is actually just light reflection..not emission of such While all animals have a superior number of rods to enhance night viewing..only specialized hunters such as; cats owls hyenas etc...have enough to depend on to hunt their prey in pitch darkness. That is what I know about it all! The rest I figure is just nonsense..red eyeshine..holds no place in the world that we know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2008 21:21:12 GMT -5
Hello So..i just gotta ask - What is nocturnal vision? I thought cats are the only creatures that really have vision, rather, eyes, that have developed in a way that they can actually see in the dark - the rest of us "creatures" pretty much rely on adaptions - both to sight and other senses - eg. hearing. I've heard people describe sasquatch as "nocturnal" but this can not be correct as nocturnal animals sleep all day and party all night - and where does the "eye shine" come into the equation? Inquiring minds want to know Chrissie Hi Chrissie, Here is some information that should help you understand nocturnal vision. The Nocturnal Eye What appears as pitch black to a human may be dim light to a nocturnal animal. The reason lies in the structure of the eye itself. Pupils -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nocturnal animals tend to have proportionally bigger eyes than humans do. They also tend to have pupils that open more widely in low light. So, at the outset, nocturnal eyes gather more light than human eyes do. Rods and cones -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- After the light passes through the pupil, it is focused by the lens onto the retina, which is connected to the brain by the optic nerve. The retina is an extremely complex structure. It's made up of at least 10 distinguishable layers, and is packed with more sensory nerve cells than anywhere else in the body. The retina is home to two different kinds of light receptor cells—rods and cones. (Both are named after their relative shapes.) Cones work in bright light and register detail, while rods work in low light, detecting motion and basic visual information. It is the rods that become highly specialized in nocturnal animals. In fact, many bats, nocturnal snakes and lizards have no cones at all, while other nocturnal animals have just a few. Tapetum -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many nocturnal eyes are equipped with a feature designed to amplify the amount of light that reaches the retina. Called a tapetum, this mirror-like membrane reflects light that has already passed through the retina back through the retina a second time, giving the light another chance to strike the light-sensitive rods. Whatever light is not absorbed on this return trip passes out of the eye the same way it came in—through the pupil. The presence of the tapetum can be observed at night when a pair of glowing eyes reflects back a flashlight or some other light source. (Interestingly, different animals have different color tapeta, a fact that can aid in nighttime animal identification.) Circular vs. slit pupils -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One consequence of having extremely light sensitive eyes, is that they must be adequately protected during the day. Some animals accomplish this with a retractable eye flap. Others rely on their pupils. The circular pupil, because of the way the muscle bunches as it contracts, is the least efficient at closing rapidly and completely. A slit pupil, with two sides that can close like a sliding door, is far better at this task, which is why so many nocturnal eyes have slit pupils. These apertures can be vertical, horizontal, or diagonal. Source: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kalahari/nocturnaleye.html#retinaKen (Bushman)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 9:25:51 GMT -5
THANKS GUYS! Now that made sense to me - i tried to find my own information but came up way short. Nursing books tend to focus on human beings While i was aware of pupils accommodating light, i was not aware that the cones and rods differentiated! I had speculated more rods, less cones, but had no idea how that might look. That is interesting. The tapetum, described as having mirror like qualities could definitely explain the eye shine, not to be confused with ultra red light, Gerry - which i agree with you on, is way out there! One question i am left with is if the differentiations in rods/cones and tapetum. Could these changes evolve over generations or can they evolve throughout the course of a creatures lifetime - i know that rods and cones I find the biology extremely interesting - some of the information related to "slit eyes" is interesting to me as well - can we safely rule out, or "speculate", that Sasquatch is not a night time hunter then, based on descriptions of it's eyes and lack of any slit pupils? This is the kind of critical thinking i find important - all creatures are biologically equipped to their environment and lifestyle - they have evolved to adapt for their survival, yes? Knowing this very basic assumption, we can "speculate" with educated caution about behaviors, characteristics, and even eating habits - can't we do this responsibly? Not saying we know, or that its fact, but the best guess based on information we do know. Just putting it out there As a researcher, i want to up my chances of observing this creature - random driving doesn't do it for me - scrutinizing a location where a sighting has been can provide us with a lot more information - i'm not saying we can get inside the mind or reason of the creature, but surely we can put all of our experience and knowledge together to come up with the most reasonable conclusion based on the information we're given - if for no other reason, than to try to up our odds of observing this creature again. There have been a lot of good posts with a lot of good insight and ideas that have just been tossed to the curb because we don't always keep an open mind or see the value in learning the perspectives of others. There was a time that one researcher swore the creature NEVER went the same path or the same place twice - at least until another researcher pointed out all the footprints documented in Bluff Creek - over several occurances on the same road! I can't emphasize how valuable i find this dialogue - the insight and ideas and wealth of knowledge and experience from ALL perspectives helps me, and i hope others, to gain more knowledge related to this creature Thanks again for the lesson on Nocturnal Vision! Chrissie
|
|