|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 27, 2008 10:31:49 GMT -5
If one is actually serious about ever getting to see a Sasquatch in the wild, then I would consider not lighting one cigarette off the other while in the bush, cure my constant coughing problem so not to advertise my presence to everything within ear-shot, and as much as I love dogs ... I'd consider leaving him or her at home.
I agree that Random driving along major roads can be expensive with little results to show for it. Most logging roads get pretty rough and have lots of side trails in them that a low riding 4WD cannot maneuver over without damaging the vehicle. But is that all there is to searching for the Sasquatch? One must first find evidence that the creature is in the area. A sighting report is one way to become informed of this, but its only as good as the report is reliable. At every moment of the day there is theoretically a Sasquatch out there and the same goes for its footprints. To know just where the two are, then one has to find that evidence. Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin used this very same approach which led to their getting a film of a Sasquatch in the Six Rivers National Forest. They rode the dirt rodes at night by truck and by day they went out on horseback ... all in an attempt to find some sign of the creature. Their approach has worked for me, but it takes a lot of determination, sacrifice, patience, and commitment. There are no short-cuts!
As far as a Sasquatch following the same path ... there is no proof of this. In Bluff Creek there were several various sized tracks seen far and few between on the dirt logging roads. The ones that were seen had only entered onto the road for a short distance before exiting again. I believe in the case of Patterson's creature, its track was seen some seven years earlier and not again until Roger stumbled upon it the day of his encounter. To this day I cannot recall an instance where someone has since then found tracks on the sandbar where Roger filmed his Sasquatch. Someone can correct me if I am wrong. If these animals traveled a certain path like other animals do, then a trip-camera on a game trail would have produced something long before now.
On a side note and observation -
About animals having nocturnal vision ... I posted this before and will repeat it again: Like many animals, bears’ eyes have a reflective layer called the tape-tum lucid-um lining the back of the eyeball. This layer reflects light back through the retina, allowing light to stimulate light-sensitive cells in the retina a second time, thereby improving night vision. This is what gives dogs, cats and many nocturnal animals that distinct, bright eye-shine when they are flashed with a light at night.
Nocturnal vision capabilities does not mean that the animal sleeps all day and moves around at night. From raccoons - to bears - to deer ... they all are seen at different times of the day and night, just as the Sasquatch reports reflect about that animal. So in the future we should know that when someone refers to the Sasquatch being nocturnally equipped ... it means that they can see in the dark.
Bigfoothunter
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Oct 27, 2008 12:48:20 GMT -5
Not all animals have a tapetum lucidum. In fact all apes and monkeys don't have it. So if Sasquatches have eye shine and can see in the dark, it is from some other mechanism, such as that which allows tarsiers to be night-adapted animals.
Tapetum lucidums (lucida) are high in an amino acid called Guanine, which is also found in high amounts in white bird poop, silk, and the glossy layer of mother-of-pearl. It has glossy, pearlescent, reflective qualities.
I think that larger eyes and a higher ratio of rods, combined with a tarsier-like optic pit in the retina would improve on primate eyesight enough to give a much improved night vision. There would still be an advantage to moving around on moon-lit vs. moonless nights, though, and I think this is supported by sighting data. I believe there are also reports of Sasquatch possessing slightly larger than normal eyes, compared to us or other primates.
The trade-off of having more rods and less cones is that colour vision would be less effective, while ability to see motion and contour (contrast) would be heightened.
But if our friend here who says they take red apples but leave green ones alone is correct, they do have some colour vision (as others in our genus do).
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 27, 2008 13:07:20 GMT -5
Not all animals have a tapetum lucidum. In fact all apes and monkeys don't have it. So if Sasquatches have eye shine and can see in the dark, it is from some other mechanism, I do not think that until you get a Sasquatch eye to examine ... you cannot say how they are able to see in the dark.
Bigfoothunter
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Oct 27, 2008 13:19:27 GMT -5
True. However, adaptations usually work by building on the genetic material that is already present, or you might say that new adaptations usually are based on more recent qualities.
For example, bats modify skin and bone structure in order to fly, they don't all of a sudden sprout feathers--which are an adaptation of scale structure which has not been present in mammals since the divergence from monotremes (scaly ant-eaters, if they needed to fly, might be able to do so by acquiring feathers, for example, given the right amount of time and so forth).
So if Sasquatches have a tapetum lucidum, they are drawing on genetic code that has been lost since tiny tarsier-like critters diverged from the mammalian line, and that is quite a ways back on the family tree which makes it a lot less likely. Not impossible, but very very unlikely. And given that other night vision adaptations have been used by others in the family quite successfully, it is much more likely that if Sasquatch are night adapted they are using another mechanism than a tapetum lucidum.
Look, I'm not saying that they can't have night adaptation, just that it is something other than a tapetum lucidum. They could even have eye glow/shine, as tarsiers do, but without having a TL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 13:25:03 GMT -5
vilnoori, I recall some reports where eye witness accounts describe the eyes of sasquatch as "small and bear shaped/colored" can you remind me which reports describe their eyes as large - i recall one, but can't put my finger on it!! Also, does anybody know if bears demonstrate "eye-shine"? I'm just curious about this and really respect your opinion as it relates to the extensive biological background you bring to this discussion - your sense of haha is terrific too! Chrissie
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 27, 2008 14:21:08 GMT -5
There documented Sasquatch reports that stated that the creature didn't have any white visible on their eyes. If you wish to talk to someone who really has seen a Sasqiatch up close, then consult Terry Reams or Bob Gimlin. Bob will be in Harrison Mills in November from what I have been told.
And yes, bears have eye-shine and it too, is well documented. I have photos taken with a trip camera where the eye-shine of the bear was quite noticeable.
Bigfoothunter
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 27, 2008 14:24:04 GMT -5
Look, I'm not saying that they can't have night adaptation, just that it is something other than a tapetum lucidum. They could even have eye glow/shine, as tarsiers do, but without having a TL. I would defer that Jeff Meldrum at the department of anthropology for I believe he has studied the topic in depth.
Bigfoothunter
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 15:02:33 GMT -5
bigfoothunter, I appreciate that you seem to think you are an expert on sasquatch - I, however, having spent some time with you, do not feel you are an expert, nor do i feel your continued harassment and badgering of people who don't share your opinions is acceptable. Chrissie
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 15:07:31 GMT -5
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Oct 27, 2008 15:13:55 GMT -5
Chrissie, in answer to your question, I'm a biologist but not a specialist on bears. I looked around some sites and didn't find much. They do have eye shine, as most creatures do, but I don't think they have a tapetum lucidum. At any rate, here is a write up I found that seems to be quite informative. They even mention bigfoot, though of course not in a very complimentary way. blog.ltc.arizona.edu/azmasternaturalist/2005/09/the_eyeshine_ef.htmlBigfoothunter I have all due respect for Dr. Jeff Meldrum (Heck, I'm a big fan) but he is not a specialist in eyes, his level of expertise in eyes in particular is probably about equal to mine. As you can see in the link below, his speciality is the locomotion of primates. That's what got him into this field, in which footprints are so important. I've never seen him write about eyes, and if you know of one, please direct me to it as I'd be fascinated to know what he thinks about it all. www.isu.edu/bios/Professors_Staff/meldrum_j.shtml
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 15:50:45 GMT -5
The article provided below regarding eyeshine was a super read - very informative. One type of owl has a red color eye shine, as well, different species can have different colors - that was really interesting. Wolf spiders...ack...have eye shine...<shudder> Thanks vilnoori - i'm trained in nursing and while biology was essential, my degree is in nursing, not biology - your type of education and experience is essential to some aspects of sasquatch i really want to learn. Chrissie
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 27, 2008 17:23:32 GMT -5
Bigfoothunter wrote:
I think that comments like this one is straying off the point and bogging down a good discussion. Please refrain from making personal comments about people on these boards. Stick to the facts of your point of view and let others do the same!
In other words..play nice..or don't play at all!
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 27, 2008 17:35:07 GMT -5
Chrissie wrote:
The same goes for you. I have never heard bigfoothunter say he was an expert on anything! If you have a problem then do not vent it here on the boards. I am not going to babysit either of you! You are both adults and I think that it would be better if you two hashed this out between yourselves, or just do not have any further contact between each other...especially in these threads!
Remember Bigfoothunter..and Chrissie...it is only a discussion..we are not writing the "Ten Commandments of Sasquatch Hunting! "
This little tit for tat game is starting to get tiring!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 18:21:52 GMT -5
Thanks Gerry, I've nothing to "hash out". I do expect responsible and respectful adult dialogue in this forum. Can we please get back to learning and sharing ideas? Thanks, Chrissie
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Oct 28, 2008 12:31:52 GMT -5
Sounds good to me!
|
|