Are there any researchers near Nelson

[Sean V.]

thomassteenburg said:

I had not heard of W.C.S.R.O until after I had moved to B.C

Thomas Steenburg

The W.C.S.R.O. is fairly new (2004). I researched for years on my own without publishing any of the reports I received. Then I had a small group known as Central Alberta Sasquatch Research C.A.S.R.), that I founded in 2000, it had a small (and none too impressive) website to go with it. Brian was the last person to join C.A.S.R. before it became the W.C.S.R.O.

All in all, I have been researching in Alberta since 1995. Not even close to the amount of time you have been doing this Thomas, but then, I was only born in 1978.

[thomassteenburg]

Sean are saying that I"m,,,,,,,,,old?

Thomas

[Deleted]

Hello,all! If I may, my brother is a scholastic and mentioned this to me on a hunting trip. We were on foot and miles up into the mountains in late autumn. I mentioned that if the weather turned bad on us we wouldn't get out. We can build a shelter under a tree, my brother says and explains he has seen how to do it on old game trails the old ones used (these were all laboriously investigated and documented as part of treaty negotiations).Briefly, a small group would pick out a tree with low branches and build a stack of brush over the lowest branches, resulting in a sort of lean-to that becomes an igloo when snow-covered. A small group can huddle together in this shelter and wait out a storm, for days if need be. The Sas might have something like this going on. As well, there is ample food available for Sas hunting parties. If you think about it a population at rest doesn't require as much food and single large animal would feed a large group for a day,especially if you eat the organs. Sasquatches seem to be awesome athletes and if they have primate strength surely hibernating bears are no contest!
I don't blame the hunter for not exploring the cave. People that have been into the woods know there is a sort of "vibe" that must not be ignored. I've heard it called "aura bounce". I think there is a psychic connection between something that wants to be not found and someone that doesn't want to find anything. Animals do this all the time. I once stepped out of a barn and into the path of a Grand Daddy bull moose. The moose stopped and let me pass. Niether myself nor the animal looked at each other and the moment passed. I think Sas do it,too. It's a sort of see-no-evil, speak-no-evil deal that benefits everyone. Cheers, Happy Holidays!

[vilnoori]

just a note, non-verbal communication is extremely important not only with all animals but especially in primates. Westerners seem to be unaware of the challenge of eye contact, but even monkeys use eye contact or the avoidance of it in communication with each other. Only the most dominant animals in a troupe will engage in eye contact with each other. If you want to avoid being attacked by apes, avoiding eye contact is a very important thing. You basically should sit down, or move slowly away, becoming very involved in the plants around you. That tells your primate host that you are not interested in eating him, or challenging him in any way for food, territory or dominance. Important squatch skill. If you look at him, do it out of the corner of your eye only after he has had a good look at you and lost interest.

[Sean V.]

thomassteenburg said:

Sean are saying that I"m,,,,,,,,,old?

Thomas

Yeah, I believe that you understand me. ;D

I was a mere 1 year old when you started active research, so you are old only in "comparison" to me. Does that make ya feel better?

[Deleted]

Thomas,

Don't feel bad, I'm the old fart in the the WCSRO at 44. I meant to ask you after your last post. As Vladimir was an anthropologist, he must have had some unique in-sites as to what Sasquatch is and where it fits in the classification of all living things. Do you recall any conversations about that with him. What was his thinking and what's your thinking. My own thoughts are based on the following premises:

1) Sasquatch is reclusive in the extreme due to a combination of low population density, location of food sources and avoidence of man. Unlike all other animals in our region of study, sasquatch avoids being seen.
2) Sasquatch has successfully avoided man for thousands of years. This suggests intelligence and a language
3) Sasquatch or equivalent has been observed on every continent except Antarctica and thus must have evolved over a long time in parallel with man to be spread out like that.
4) Sasquatch is of nessesity a basic hunter/gatherer and thus like primative man must be nomadic.
5) It has not yet been shown as a tool user (some sparse evidence, one or two out of thousands of sightings in which it had a stick or rock in its hand) although lots have reported rocks being thrown.

Given these few deductions, I'm thinking sasquatch is a hominid more evolved than the apes, less evolved mentally than humans, but from along our general gentic tree. I do not believe it is G. Blacki or the like as there is vitually no fossil evidence to show what G blacki actually was. Let me know what you and Vladimir were thinking.

BB

[vilnoori]

Even chimps and baboons are tool users. Chimps will return to the same area and use hammer stones to break open nuts, year after year, teaching their offspring to do the same. They use sticks to obtain out of reach food (so do some smart birds), and chew on the sweet, soft end of a grass stem, sticking it into a termite mound to "fish" for termites (incidentally, so do African kids when it is termite season). So I would take it as a matter of course that Sasquatch also are tool users, though their need may not be as much since their sheer bulk and strength is so great. No need to use a hammer stone if your big, bulky jaws and huge teeth can get the job done just as well.

The same can be said about building shelters. Most big apes build nest like structures to sleep in at night, usually out of reach of predators, snakes, ants etc. So I would not at all be surprised to find out that they build simple shelters.

What I would look for is evidence of intelligence and evidence of dexterity indicating the use of opposable thumbs. That kind of thing.

And I have to agree with you on the homo classification, my reasoning is based on the shape of the foot. Even Australopithecines had a diverging big toe, and you'll notice from most prints that Sasquatch toes do not diverge very much. Any modifications in the foot seem to be formed to cope with the great increase in mass and possibly the difference of gait.

[Deleted]

They may be tool users, the point is nobody has seen them use tools that I'm aware of. A few of our guys have reported rocks thrown at them, at night, so there's the question of if it was a rock or something else entirely. I'm not sure that qualifies as tool use anyway. I think what I was trying to get at is that so far as we know, they exist on a very primative level, and have not moved beyond that level (use of tools, use of fire, etc.) whereas H sapian has. Why? View this statement in the context of where sasquatch fits on the evolutionary chain, or indeed where it fits within currently accepted classification of known primates including ourselves and it raises some very interesting questions. If sasquatch turns out to be more closely related genetically to us than any other living primate, (this is highly probable), then when and how and why did we depart from the primative state to our modern state. Another way to ask that question is, why hasn't sasquatch moved out of it's primative state (relative to our own). The answer is probably because it is uniquely adapted to its environment and does not have any adaptive pressures on it due to its reclusiveness and presummed avoidance of man. However, man is encroaching on its traditional territories. What will be the effect of that? It will move back further into the wilderness, making it harder to find, resulting in a drop off of sightings, etc. Perhaps thats what we're seeing right now, as I have noted a fall off in reports over the last couple of years.
There's lots of land out there for squatch to hide in and it maybe a long time before one of us is lucky enough to get the proof we're all after.

BB

[Deleted]

I have heard that Sasquatch might make use of tree whacking and rock knocking.

In my view, from all the accounts on the Sasquatch's behaviour traits, Sasquatch is completely ape. I would go as far as saying that Sasquatch behaviour and Ape behaviour are almost indistinguishable. (except for reproduction and sociability) Sasquatch seems unsociable in general. I think a lot of human traits have been inferred upon Sasquatch because of the presumed bipedality of the Animal. Homological references of any species are based on inferrence and impression not impiricism. So even though the temptation is to Humanise Sasquatch the behavioural accounts of the Animal are clearly apish.

"Tool" using is a difficult term. Is a bird a human ancestor if it picks up a stick with it's beak and uses it to make a nest or pry a rock? Elephants are known to pickup rocks and throw them fairly accurately at people, does this make an elephant a primate? Of course not.

I do believe that Sasquatch is smart, if not unusually smart in the animal kingdom. But not human smart. I also think Sasquatch is a touch less bipedal that what is commonly thought. Some accounts have Sasquatch being able to use it's arms for locomotion for short periods of time along with grabbing tree limbs for forward swinging, (like a child on monkey-bars). Also another interesting trait is Sasquatch's ability to bound down hills at incredible speeds. I have read a few accounts of this. Likely this is because of the agility of Sas using arms like an ape to grab limbs and even grabbing limbs with it's feet while going down a hill.

I don't know what the consensus is here, but I believe in Meldrum's view that the Sasquatch shows apelike mid-tarsal break in the foot that would cause a much different gait than a human gait. Another reason to go ape with Sas.

[Deleted]

For clarification sake, both apes and humans make up the family of Hominidae which has been traditionally defined through bipedialism and big brains. This classification is now defined more through commen genes that morphological features. When it comes right down to it we are simply a more adapt ape in terms of intelligence and adaptability. The key difference between the great apes and sasquatch is that squatch has yet to be exploited by man, while all other species on the planet have been hunted or captured. Even the aboriginals have not recorded any hunting or capture of sasquatch and yet they are well known to have made highly efficient use of many plants/animals/fungus for food/shelter/tools. It is highly probable that sasquatch evolved in parallel with man as it has been sighted on all continents except Antartica. In Africa, it is well known that apes are used for bush meat, the result of which is that Gorilla is an endangered species.

I would suggest that some of the reasons that Sasquatch has not been exploited yet because:

1) It doesn't exist
2) Its low population density and reclusiveness prevent consisitant contact with man.
3) It's intelligence allows it to avoid man (for whatever reason).

I would conclude that it maybe ape like in some respects, but it's long term and consistant ability to avoid man suggests a higher intelligence than has been demonstrated by "Great Apes". Thats the challange of squatching, trying to find something that doesn't want to be found.

BB

[vilnoori]

Some of my reasons for leaning toward the homo side of the Ape vs. Man debate is the oral history associated with them. We see in ancient European, Middle Eastern, Russian, Asian and Native American cultures a common theme of giants (for example, the story of Saint Christopher, google it).

The Northwestern Indians seem to have had no doubt that these were a large tribe of Indians, not animals, and there is a common tale of battling mountain giants that live in caves and triumphing over them with the help of with fire.

Then there are the accounts of speech, in one of them (the one where a fellow shoots a "pet" human boy of a Sasquatch female) the female speaks to the Native man who made the shot, IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE. In other words, not only are they smart enough to have their own language, but to learn another. Accounts suggest that a sort of trade took place between Sasquatch and Indian tribal members (usually one medicine man), and even today "gifting" is described by people interested in habituation of isolated Sasquatch families.

Now I'll tell you something--apes do not give to strangers, and they have no idea of trade. It is strictly the strongest gets the best, and everyone has to take their place on the heirarchy. A gorilla will not take an apple left on a stump and replace it with a dead rabbit. It will eat the apple, yes, but then go on it's way giving it no more thought than, "Hmm, maybe I should check this place again for miraculous fruit appearing from nowhere."

Well, you get my drift.

My take is that in times past these giant tribes were the original inhabitants, and supremely adapted to their environment. Then along came modern tribes, and there was persecution of the originals to the point where they became scarce and also extremely leery of contact with modern humans. With their superior size and physique they adapted very well to nocturnal and mountain-forest-aquatic (swamp) dwelling, taking the environmental niches that the modern humans did not use.

And then recently, whites (and others) arrived, but are even more urban in habit than the second wave were. So by now the originals are very, very good at hiding. So point number three, above, is my preference. And if you think about it there is still a vast area of land which is available to fullfill the needs of the original inhabitants.

[Deleted]

Stories of bartering with Sasquatch are very fascinating, but I get the feeling that stories like this have taken on some embellishments. I have heard stories of people leaving objects in backyards and have a "move the object" game over days with a purported Sasquatch. Not quite bartering. It may just be a playful juvenile. But definately something with more intellegence than any known animal in the area. And yet even this behaviour is not specifically human.

I get the feeling sometimes my cat is trying to impress me by killing a bird or rodent in the area and leaving it at the door. And often bringing my attention to the fine trophy. My wife had a cat that would make a kill and leave it on her bed. I can only infer that the cat is making some offer of food in some manner. This instict makes some sense for a communal animal. This particular instict seems stronger in Felines than other animals. Pecking order plays a role but sometimes the line between pecking order and just social structure are confused.

My point on toolmaking and other aspects of Sasquatch is that because Sas behaviour shows to be an ape it's most likely the reality that it is only an ape. And I don't see the necessity to say it's part of Human evolution.

Part of the reason is I think too much has been put into Sas' regular bipedalism and some connection with Humans. Much like semi-bipedalism is overrated in other primates. Even dogs can demonstrate bipedalism.

Mental capacity differences between a Sasquatch and a Human are certainly huge. Sure the theoretical Sasquatch is a magnificent survivor and most likely the smartest thing around in it's environment barring a human. But there is simply zero evidence that such an animal has acquired, developed any capabilities beyond rock throwing and tree whacking. No evidence of even attaining chimp abilities. Until any evidence is forthcomming that suggests otherwise, Sasquatch to me is firmly in the Ape catagory.

Homology and behavioral inferrences are subjective practices. I think of the extinct Tasmanian wolf which was a marsupial and the North American Wolf a mammal. Both animals simply cannot be wolves at the same time but the Tasmanian wolf is called a wolf because it "looks" so much like a wolf. And this might be a halfway decent analogy of Humans and the possibility of a Sasquatch.

Language is also a tricky one. It is no mystery that just about every Primate makes vocalisations. The sign language experiments with Chimps shows that some form of communication can be fostered between apes and humans that goes beyond what we perceive they could do. Could Sasquatch have more vocal acuity than other apes and express itself more directly this way? I would think this is a real possibility. But even this does not identify the animal as human. It makes it seem closer to us nonetheless.

But for now there just isn't enough to hang a hat on yet to start making that determination.

[thomassteenburg]

brian said:

Thomas,

Don't feel bad, I'm the old fart in the the WCSRO at 44. I meant to ask you after your last post. As Vladimir was an anthropologist, he must have had some unique in-sites as to what Sasquatch is and where it fits in the classification of all living things. Do you recall any conversations about that with him. What was his thinking and what's your thinking. My own thoughts are based on the following premises:

1) Sasquatch is reclusive in the extreme due to a combination of low population density, location of food sources and avoidence of man. Unlike all other animals in our region of study, sasquatch avoids being seen.
2) Sasquatch has successfully avoided man for thousands of years. This suggests intelligence and a language
3) Sasquatch or equivalent has been observed on every continent except Antarctica and thus must have evolved over a long time in parallel with man to be spread out like that.
4) Sasquatch is of nessesity a basic hunter/gatherer and thus like primative man must be nomadic.
5) It has not yet been shown as a tool user (some sparse evidence, one or two out of thousands of sightings in which it had a stick or rock in its hand) although lots have reported rocks being thrown.

Given these few deductions, I'm thinking sasquatch is a hominid more evolved than the apes, less evolved mentally than humans, but from along our general gentic tree. I do not believe it is G. Blacki or the like as there is vitually no fossil evidence to show what G blacki actually was. Let me know what you and Vladimir were thinking.

BB

Brian;
Vladimir thought that the sasquatch was a more advanced Hominid. More man like than ape. I was than and still am today in the great ape camp, with G blacki being the most logical explanations as to where this creature fits into the fossil record. But that of course is just a theory, until the animal is prove to0 exist. I am in total agreement with your No#1, in fact I would also say that encounters happen when they wonder close to human habituate rather than when people enter theirs. No#2 and I would ad reclusive nature. No#3 possible though in my opinion I think the yeti and the alma, or not the same creature as the sasquatch. Yeti most often reported as more man sized and often seen knuckle walking, The Alma is also more man sized and has been seen using primitive tools and even fire a few times were as the sasquatch is a giant and is never said to use hand crafted tools, and never uses fire. I am starting to think that many reports from the eastern part of north America in the years past have been mistakenly put into the sasquatch file when really witnesses were describing primitive people? No#4 Yep I totally agree with you here. No#5 Yes again.

hominid or not when the creatures existence is established the questions will just be beginning.

Thomas Steenburg

[vilnoori]

You said it Thomas! Another point which I've raised before is that if they are homo then they will exhibit a range of cultural capabilities, just as we do. Some modern humans are flying to the moon, some are still living in the stone age. Take a human child and raise it without language and culture and basically you have a very bright non-verbal ape. But each human being is capable of attaining the highest cultural level if trained to do so at the right timing developmentally.

We could be seeing the same sort of thing with Sasquatch species. Some groups may have attained a high level of culture, and can communicate with a spoken language, weave, wear clothing, use furs, skins and woven blankets, make sophisticated underground or cave shelters and furthermore pass this knowledge on to their kids. We know that chimps already do this to some extent, so why not Sasquatch. Others may be isolated culturally, and living on their considerable brawn combined with a naturally greater problem-solving ability which all primates have, and which I would expect from such a large-brained primate. And this may be an explanation for the range in cultural ability which has been reported. It doesn't have to be an either-or situation, and we don't have to consider that some stories are embellished just because they don't fit into our particular view.