Sure. Bluegenes seemed to be saying that it is all just a matter of course – of doing what is presently do-able: performing DNA analysis on all the hair samples (enough to weave a rug) and stuff out there, taking the derived sequence, and making a definitive identification of “sasquatch,” by placing the sequence on the tree of life. My response to that was this:

“Bluegenes, If you’re going to say things like this, you need to make it clear what you are talking about – a nice, big, fresh sasquatch sample loaded with intact DNA. Sure, then it could be repeated by many labs and placed on the tree of life. But “real samples” are not fresh chunks of sasquatch, they are hair and various bits of stuff that maybe, barely has some intact DNA in it (and more probably some human DNA contamination).”

I hope you can understand from that that I don’t think the thrust of what he’s saying (my interpretation of it, anyway) is feasible… for the reasons I stated.

Ok, I get it now and, for the record, I disagree with you and agree with Bluegenes.

In my opinion, even a single crappy quality sample, if analyzed correctly by the "right" people could blow this whole thing wide open. And by "right" I mean a lab with enough credibility and objectivity that some of those obvious questions could be bypassed. Maybe your talking about something else, like massive genome-wide sequencing, and answering big questions about form and function, and having repeatable analyses and getting conferences of scientists to stand up and say "Hooray!" in which case you may be right. But I think BlueGenes and I are aiming for things more like "if this sequence isn't from an unknown ape than than what else could it be?" that might get enough notice to be able to stride forward.

In any event I'm not sure that part of the discussion is worth debating because such outcomes are relatively unpredictable. But I guess people like BlueGenes and I (and many others) are trying to encourage more samples to be properly collected and analyzed because we are a bit hopeful. I think you may be too, but the message of "that's not going to work" may discourage a lot of people.

Fair?

But I also don't see how you got to that point from where you started by suggesting comparing consensus sequences? Maybe we should take this back to that other thread?

Apeman

My daddy once said to me "Your mouth is going to get you into big touble one of these days". He was and is correct. I suppose it's no accident I'm in the field I'm currently in....as opposed to politics, sales or public relations.

W: I'm raising a white flag. I have no doubt that you and I (and others) are proposing and looking for the same thing. Leaving methodology alone, I think that language has gotten in the way. Science has and still demands precise use of words. It does so in an effort base findings and proposals on fact and to counter meer opinion. However, I'm reminding myself, as I write this, that in the greater world there are appropriate times to use that precise language and times when opinion is ok as well (whether that opinion is mine or anyone elses). So, I give you my word. If you participate in, or find yourself, the very first sasquatch sequence I'll try to be the first person to pat you on the back and say "job well done".

Apeman: Thanks for watching my back. And thanks for being a moderator. It is greatly appreciated. And please continue to correct me when I am wrong or your opinion differs from mine. I certainly don't know it all. Far from it. I will admit that ego and self rightousness can be a tempting mistresses. I think I'll say a short prayer asking the powers that be "If the day comes when I believe I know the most, or am the best, at anything.....may I be hit by a large bus, or at least whacked gently in the head with a fairly hard object".

All others: Thank you for your continuing comments, suggestions, jokes AND opinions.

I think I'll sign off now, go outside and take a short walk in the woods near campus. It's fall now. The leaves are changing and the smells are wonderful. And hey, I'm in Oregon.....who knows what else I might see or find.

with peace my friends,

BlueGenes

(My emphasis)


Not only more samples, but the same samples that have been analyzed years ago just not by the "right" people as defined above.

And Apeman, you are a very good moderator!




Did you have a nice walk, Blue? It's beautiful outside today.

Your description sounds like a fantasy. As such, I agree too. It’s just what should be done, with magic powers – all samples analyzed by good labs (free). That hasn’t happened, though, because it isn’t feasible. It isn’t feasible because: real samples are small, degraded, have inhibitors in them, and the strategy for how to identify sasquatch DNA is unclear (I offered an idea on this). In addition, any analysis will be confounded by the inevitable contamination of most samples by human DNA. Each sample becomes a research problem. It’s do-able, but someone has to pay for it = not feasible. I am not saying samples should not be tested (again, I’ve suggested a strategy). What I’m hearing from you all is an unrealistic portrayal of what is possible.

I think good samples should be tested. A fresh chunk of sasquatch would do it all. Hair and such may yield bits of promising sequence and should be pursued, but that’s up to the passionate, talented, equipped and moneyed bigfooters. There are few of those.

Can't we have a reasonable discussion without resorting to words like "fantasy," "dreaming," "magic," "unrealistic," and supposed contentions that certain things aren't feasible? You keep mixing apples and oranges, is the problem that samples are too poor quality, or is it that they aren't being analyzed properly or that it costs too much many? And since you don't actually believe that any of this is even happening, how do you make such judgements?

I'm starting to be more sympathetic with BlueGenes because I'm starting to wonder if you really have any experience in this area because it's increasingly sounding like you don't. (But I'm guessing that you actually have a lot of experience in a very high tech lab working with very pure samples, cell cultures, recombinant DNA, and looking at gene expression or something like that.) How does "your idea" (which I think I've sufficiently argued is actually nothing new) bypass any of the problems you've pointed out? Do you really think anyone is arguing that "a fresh chunk of sasquatch" would NOT do it all?

So here are my questions to try to cut through some of the rhetotic:

1. Do you not understand, know, or realize, what sorts of sequences have been derived from really crappy, old, contaminated samples, and if not, do you need one of us to direct you to some references? [Condescension fully intended]

2. The methodology you initially proposed will not get around the human contamination issue, so why do you keep acting like it does?

3. As has been pointed out many times recently, hair can sometimes give much more than "bits of sequences," but giving this notion the benefit of the doubt for the moment, why is that best left to "passionate, talented, equipped and moneyed bigfooters?" I don't understand that comment at all and am wondering if the logical conclusion is that dispassionate, untalented, poorly-equipped and simply poor bigfooters are supposed to come up with a "fresh chunk of sasquatch." Do you really think anyone is sitting around carefully picking out the premium samples to analyze? If that's the case then you are now free to resume using words like "fantasy" and "magic."

Apeman

Now that's funny.

I'm sure a certain primate specialist would agree.

To me, there’s nothing wrong using frank language when debating ideas on a forum like this. It’s just batting opinions back and forth. That’s all there is behind my saying you’re dreaming, something is a fantasy… I guess we have different styles and mine grates on you. Okay. The thing that has become clear to me in all this is that I can’t communicate effectively with you or Bluegenes. I don’t know why that is, maybe it’s me, of course I think it’s not, but anyway I’m frustrated and just don’t want to continue this. It isn’t fun or productive or anything. Peace and good luck.

Doubleyouex Whyzee

If he'd said "right-hand-driving, band van," then maybe it would be funny, but otherwise, NOT funny.

WXYZ- I think we're all neck-deep in frustration, in part because we can't all seem to communicate so I don't blame you. I suspect that this is yet another of those discussions where we are all a LOT closer in agreement than we seem, and I think there might be something to be gained from each other's ideas and critiques if we can figure out a way to do it. So, even though I think you left a few things hanging, I respect your exit but welcome us all returning to this topic, maybe under a different context.

Apeman

Harry, all I meant was that this discussion was way over my pay grade. Although I am not above a little sarcasm every now and then. I sense we share that trait.

IMO if we get some really outstanding pictures of BF in the near future, It's not going to change anything in the scientific world. They will still demand hard evidence, and with digital technology, it's not very hard to enhance a picture, so even tho a picture may be genuine, they (the skeptics) can turn it off as some digital enhancment. Does everyone follow? Anyway, and I hate to say it, but the only thing that most skeptics want is a dead body, and believers think it's an ancient human, so if we kill a BF to be examined, then we just commited murder. I don't believe that bfs are human for many reasons, But that's a different topic. All im saying is that the science department wants a dead body, or a captured animal. And if you ask me, (and it's been said all over this forum) once a BF has been killed, taken into examination, and confirmed a real anima, then the stupidheads in the world will go out and start to shoot anything that moves attempting to get a BF for themselves. I think that area 51 may have one in captivity, just because they are capable of doing so. Thats my opinion. If anyone else has different ideas, please share.

And they want it delivered.

The majority won't invest a dime in the search, and will fight even if government was to live up to it's responsibility and attempt a survey of the creatures.

A series of clear and detailed photos would at the very least turn heads.

Besides a DNA sample as mentioned, a simple molar would be enough to prove and classify it. I doubt it would count as murder even if sasquatch turned out to be very closely related to our species, as something large and hairy like a sasquatch could easily have been mistaken for a bear.

I doubt proof of the animals existence will cause people to poach them, as laws would be put in place to protect them.

It seems like I remember reading that someone had attempted to contaminate dog and cat hairs with human DNA but after analysis the contamination didn't show up. Perhaps human contamination isn't as easily achieved as we assume. I mean, it's not like alleged BF hair samples are left soaking in human blood.

Laws were meant to be broken.. There still will be those people who will try to shoot them, and end up shooting anything that moves, including humans. Add alcohol to the mix and you've got a problem.

The same could be said for the hunting of any animal.

Besides, I doubt a drunken poacher could even find one, it's hard enough for sober woodsmen and scientists.

I'm sure this topic has been discussed in other threads, it's sort of off topic here I think.

FredSneakers/David, I wasn't talking about people shooting BFs, I was saying that there will be more people in the woods and then more accidents.

Alright, back to the original thread. I know this has been mentioned before, but I think we could use more hair samples, IMO hair samples are actual hard evidence that are hard to argue against. I think from now on people should check for loose hair, if possible, on raspberry bushes, thornes, or any other sharp pieces of brush that can catch hair.

Dung is another thing that can help us learn more about their diet and behavior. I think we could set up bait piles, with no traps, no cameras or anything, just bait. Then just put some sharp thorns nearby and if possible mud up and area for tracks. Alos, if possible if the bait pile is hit, look for dung nearby.

I'm not saying we shouldn't get more photos and videos, I'm just saying we need some hard physical evidence to at LEAST satisfy the BF community, and it may persuade a few more skeptics and unbelievers to reconsider their opinion.

How about this for a new research idea and method. For 1 year, everyone stop searching for bigfoot. Instead, we all infiltrate these P.T. Barnum Bigfoot Organizations. We turn our third generation night vision on these snake oil salesman as they make the noises in the night, the bangs in the trees, laying prints and setting up evidence for the following days "field research". We expose these hoaxers, and CRUSH there organizations. Leaving only the researchers with honesty and integrity, (and the up and coming hoaxers). You know when I went to college I was the T.A. for a professor who ran an advanced field biology trip for two weeks a year in the high sierras. I had every set of footprints that were available for the region. It was my job to lay these prints down in a research obstacle course set in nature. People actually thought that I just had a keen eye for finding tracks...not knowing. I was fooling grad students...or at least some of them. If only one of them, had decided to get smart and pull out the night vision on the humans instead of the animals. Track the hoaxer!!! well....whaddya think?

Ohhhhh........K

O.k. I'll bite.

The problem being is that no matter how much "proof" you garner on any given individual or organization out there looking into Bigfoot. Or even how obvious the flaws with methodology, evidence ( using that term loosely) or what have you. There is always going to be someone or multiple someones wh0 won't use login and common sense no matter what.

Every "faction" has their supporters dating back in this for as long as I can remember. In the internet world that many of us go Bigfooting in the problem is compounded a hundred-fold. Now you have to deal with second or third hand reproductions as an excuse as to why something doesn't look as "real " as the original , so and so is a nice guy, etc etc as a defense for hoaxed or crappy presentation and evidence. The point being no matter what, it's as much about the people as it is about the fact, some want to believe what they or their friends have so much that they disregard what is right in front of them because the person they trust and in a lot of cases have never met or spent any significant time with, told them so. Or to paraphrase can't see the lies for the psychology. ( apologies to Forests and trees everywhere.)

There's also another problem associated with it, If they are caught/suspected/ etc. by a large percentage of people involved in Bigfoot research , then what ? Nothing will change , those who supported them previously still will in some cases no matter what , for a great amount of time after. There is no punishment in this field. No tenure to lose , credibility is fast becoming a non-issue and no one will ever go to jail for playing a hoax/prank involving Bigfoot ( unless there is death or dismemberment involved.)

If anyone required proof of this even I could post 100 different links that all point to the same thing ( IMO the Jacobs photos being the most recent) that have no repercussions afterward, the person involved ( and friends) simply move on elsewhere and start over again on a different forum, even if they have to start their own. So what would be the point really ?

Everyone likes to make " kool-aide" jokes about the BFRO , but that's not the only place it has happened , and the current cast of that sitcom is nothing new to bad evidence presentation. It's an ongoing thing, and after being here on this forum for a long time, and seeing the Bigfoot related things on the internet for even longer, I don't expect it to change anytime soon.

IMO anyway.

I have another idea. (Besides 'panning') While sitting here, behind my tinted windows, I was watching the cardinals, finches, sparrows, mijiros, and even doves fighting over the seed at one of my backyard feeders. I was kinda wishing that I had a slow motion camera, there was some pretty good action. I only recently tinted the back windows, myself. Usually, the birds would see me so close, through the window. Here's my idea:

Take a standard deer stand, or equivalent structure and cover it in plexiglass panels on the sides and bottom. But first, apply mirrored tint film to the panels. Then just sit back and watch the wildlife exhibit their natural behavior, completely unaware of you. And don't forget the slow-motion camera.

Yesterday I implemented a new idea. As we all know, when driving and looking for "signs" of Bigfoot, or a Bigfoot itself, we tend to drive pretty slow.

The new idea is to start from point A, ( in this case the western side of Wisconsin) with a point B goal in mind ( in this case the eastern side of Michigan ). And Drive as fast as you possibly can, like say a nearly 11 hour trip in 9 hours , in hopes of " running the bastard down" ala Terry.

If you see one hit the gas instead of the brakes.

It didn't work, but it wasn't due to lack of effort.

This can be done without all this mirror and plexiglass.You just have to sit silently and scent free to observed the wild life in its natural enviorment.The key is to not let the wild life know you are there.Since i have started hunting I have notice this.I see all kind of things while sitting in the stand .The only hard part is being able to sit there with out moving.I have yet To shoot my first deer but I am leading more to just going out there with a camera and getting great footage of the wild life in its natural state.
Mark A

ithe only thing i see that would help is for researchers to spend more time in the woods.extended research outings would do well. have a continuously monitored area of interest.

There you go!

I also do not see the point of castings. Obviously by reading Dr Meldrum's book there are some really good ones already. If they are not enough to spark science's interest a thousand more won't either. Actually I am of the mind that castings are just status sybols for researches. ' Look what I got!'

I think the best way to go is a combo of high tech and lower tech. Thermal imaging and night vision are great ideas, but I would stick with 35mm cameras. Digital ones leave too much to be scoffed at. It is too easy to fake a digital picture. A 35 mm with negative would be harder to fake. If you digitally add to a digital picture it is hard to tell what is real and what is not. Try that with 35mm and your digital fake stands out. Also I wish people would leave thier blobsquatches to themselves. I mean really, isn't this too much unneccesary silliness????

I do not know about floating around a lake, especially not cooking bacon while doing so. Seems a lake would feel too exposed to a BF. Maybe floating down a slow river at night. Definitely not one with any kind of rapids. But at the same time, wouldn't a river corridor help to spread your scent? I have very little experience hunting so I do not really know much about how scents are carried.

If I did use a scent to lure in a BF, I would stick with something natural that they would be familiar with. Maybe a berry paste or something. Strong unfamiliar scents could just as likely scare one away.

Floating around in a lake sounds promising...as far as a BF being exposed, you could be right, since there's lot to suggest they are nocturnal and shy..so why not try to fry bacon or whatever you''re using as an attractant, while on a raft at night? One could place cameras trained on the floating scent generator and researchers could monitor any activity approaching the bait without the bothersome clutter of the trees that BF typically block a clear view...of course it wouldn't necessarily have to be on a boat...perhaps just a small "island" of trees, a postage stamp-sized piece of forest "floating" out in the middle of a meadow where prey animals might be grazing. Consider the likely size of a large roaming animal's territory, you'd want to study an area well to know something about what it is that draws the supposed BF into an area and I'd want to be ready to monitor, either directly or through recordings for later examination...and not expect to find anything over the course of a weekend, or a week, or even a few months.

High tech may be the way but after reading for days on this forum and other sites that really get into the mind of BF they may have the power of who see them and when. It’s like they know when your looking.

I'm like a sensor addict and have many ideas to try in the future like;

1. I have several Ho Chi Minh trail vibration sensors that were used in the Nam war, they work well but need lots of wire so we go with wireless version. That may take some time.
2. PIR motion sensors are cheap and very low power < 20ma idle. I have the prints to the most common 1 being the Heath Zenith and can add a coded RF transmitter with several mile range. You then have a portable small PIR RF unit that will send a signal only when triggered. Multiply that by 10-20 then you can cover a large area. My 5th wheel will be set up as a control center.
3. Modify cheap 35mm throw away cameras with a spring trigger and like what was mention above a ~6lb fishing line to release the trigger. Put the camera 20 feet up a tree so it can't be destroy it after the shot. Kodak makes some with flash that are ready all the time. A cheap trail cam!

I’ve been out hiking after the first snow south of Wood Canyon lake on the Mogollon rim of AZ looking for fresh trails. The Elk, Whitetail and Fox are all heading to lower elevation. Interesting how most of the single Elk trails converge into one. I wonder if BF heads to lower elevation also.

Or maybe a camera attached to a pressure plate on the ground. This would allow the pictures to be more selective. Set the weight to over 500 pounds than all you would get are bears, moose, and of course BF. We really do not need more film wasted on deer!

There are a lot of great ideas in this thread and I hope one or more are successful; however, maybe the reason all efforts have failed to date is because BF doesn't exist.

A few years ago I remember a military surplus dealer selling a Personal detector that was used in Vietnam. Consisted of some type of radar unit with readout of vector and distance when in alarm mode. They had the ability to sense a human for miles through the jungle. I have been searching for it again as I do recall someone on Ebay was selling them and had tuned them up as he was a repairman in the service and knew them well. All my searches have come up null.

Anyone ever seen one or heard of it?

Haven't seen one but sounds intriguing.

Gasp! The devil you say!

Never has one's response matched so perfectly their avatar



Gasp! The devil you say!



Click to view attachment

Yes and what this guy is selling you is a "rube goldberg" machine ( a lot of parts that do nothing)

what you are referring to ( since it was the ONLY device used in Vietnam that attempted to find personnel in the jungle) is a "sniffer"

If I remember right- it was an M-2 olfactory detector ( or something like that)- its design "theory" was to "sniff" ammonia expelled by a human body. It was tested in both helicopter missions and some manpack models. It failed miserably.

Thats why even today, there is no such device.

What I'm talking about went into production with a prefix of AN/, when I find it I'll let you know. I didn't make this sensor up. I found several in Ogden, UT at the army surplus store 15 years ago. When I went back they had sold out. I then found them in a Ma store but the price went up to over $5,000. It had a Rotating head and the base was mounted on a special tripod. Have you ever heard of JStars? That system can track movement on the ground both friend and foe and identify, and this was back in the late 80's.



When it comes to their habitat then they are superior. I'll bet they are at the top of the food chain. If we bring our habitat with us then we will become superior and find out how to capture one. If we all get together in the thousands to form a capture party we will get one.

some are curious and some arrogant to a point that they get hostile to male intruders exhibiting primate behavior just like us. They have also learned how easy we scare. my bet is they communicate amongst themselves very well not only the howling but face to face verbal jive. They have evolved a higher communication just like we have and that is why they are so hard to locate.

So, we have not penetrated their system yet. we need to reach deeper into their habitat and surround them. Thats how a BF will be captured.

When a BF is finally captured it will change the way all Humans think. most people still will not believe it. This will be like a alien UFO landing in a major city and communicating with us. Denial will be everywhere.

Please let me know where to find a discussion on this topic if it has been discussed, as I am a new member, and may not have seen it. (Sorry if it has!)

Anyway, I have been giving some thought to something, and I haven't yet seen or heard this specific theory discussed, and wanted other opinions on it.

Let's begin by assuming that Sasquatch is a real, natural mammal, just one that very little is known about, relatively speaking - which is what I believe.
I have been thinking for some time specifically about the apparent ease with which Sasquatch evades not only the detection by humans using our senses, but also that they seem to be able to evade other methods and tools that we deploy to extend our sensory abilities. Particularly trail cams seem to be ineffective, where one would expect to have had some kind of image by now.

Generally speaking, even if Sasquatch has a much greater sensory range than most humans (hearing, smell and sight, primarily) it seems to me that more often than seems to be the case, this range should overlap our own. In other words, the distance at which they can detect humans coming near and move away, as compared to the distance that humans could use their senses to detect Sasquatch should have enough overlapping range, that due to surprise, accident or by viewing them at greater distance, I would think there should be more encounters than there are, particularly by investigators in known hot spots. And unless Sasquatch can hear the electronics or smell the materials from tremendous distance , trail cams should be at least partially effective - especially as distance from the camera increases.

Now here is where a theory I have been contemplating comes in. This may begin to seem to slip somewhat into the supernatural or paranormal, but that is not at all where I am going. I'm thinking about it from a natural, scientific point of view.

I have heard a few scattered reports where there seems to have been some kind of mental connection between the Sasquatch and particularly humans of a young age. I remember some reports where there was some talk of someone "knowing" what the Sasquatch was thinking or something like that, I think a child. Then there is the talk of the "wall of fear" or a feeling of not being welcomed to certain areas.

This line of thinking is still in the preliminary stages to me, but what do you think of the possibility that in addition to heightened "standard" senses that Sasquatch may posses, they also have some sort of increased mental sense, that perhaps they use as a tool to detect our presence at such a great physical distance that they can move away long before we are in range of any of our human methods of sensory detection - sight, hearing or smell. That they can "hear" our brain activity coming toward them in some way. Sort of like that feeling of being watched that humans may have - only greatly amplified.

Maybe they can even sense when someone is looking specifically for Sasquatch in an even stronger way. It would then be easier to have an accidental encounter than actually seeing one on a Sasquatch expedition. If so, perhaps they can sense the intent when the trail cams are set up that they are some sort of "trap", and know to stay far clear of them.

Also - they may be able to communicate in the "transmit" mode as well - explaining the sense of being not welcome that has been reported. If they were the only mammal (or close to it) that has this ability, it could explain how they still remain virtually invisible, undocumented and undiscovered by science. They may just be able to stay completely out of the range of any of our methods of detection by using a sense that we simply don't possess, and that has a greater range than the ones we do.

Anyway - please help me with this theory, by disputing it, endorsing it, adding to it or helping me to better understand. If it turns out to be valid, there may be an untried method of "camouflage", to mask our approach. I'm not suggesting tin foil hats! But just some way to get around this defensive tool if it does exist.

It's not telepathy, if that's what you're getting at. It's just that the squatch is the smartest guy in the forest, with better eyesight, hearing and olfactory than you, and you're the slowest, dullest, most stupid guy in the forest. Not you personally, you know, just human beings in general.

Ever try sneaking up on an indian?

I see your point. I think with all of the trained woodsmen, hunters, trackers, etc that are out there looking, that maybe just knowledge and sensitivity to the environment might not be enough to be elusive to the point that they have. I am definitely not going in for the telepathy angle, exactly. I don't even think I believe in that.
Just perhaps some sense of humans moving into an area using some form of detection not involving sight, smell or hearing. I first started thinking of it after hearing of the sense people have reported of not feeling welcomed into an area.

Again, I think that 'Squatchy sense" is just an ultra sensitivity to the environment that surpasses anything we can imagine.

Couple that with their inherent culture of ultra sneakiness, the ability to blend in with their surroundings, not moving much during the daylight hours, and relative scarcity and that explains it to me. When one is seen it's as rare as lightning striking your Aunt Mary, or Uncle Bob winning the lottery.

Jupiter2: I think those are pretty fair observations and welcomed perspectives, and Robert that's a pretty good explanation. I would say that where you say their senses surpass "anything we can imagine" might be better stated as "better than we currently do imagine" and I'm in strong agreement with its not being extrasensory, even though it seems like it to us, with our relatively poor senses.
I'd also add, that, like you mention, Robert, that daylight sightings seem to be rare because in the day they don't move around a lot, presumably because they hunt during lower light conditions for a number of reasons, and presuming they are somewhat nocturnal in this. The best time to observe them, seems to me, would be in evenings into the night, in areas where their prey is feeding or watering, in an area where ambush or entrapment can be employed, like along the edge of a grassy area while they can remain positioned under cover, or along roadway berms and cut-banks (which might explain some behaviors that are occasionally reported). But with big territory, just where that could be regarding any specific individual creature would be hard to second guess , and harder to track considering the fact that keeping to a trail doesn't seem like it would be as essential for a creature with the stride and size of an adult, unless the observer knew where the likely prey was and could check on areas that are productive right at that time. Going camping to look for BF is as great a reason as any to go camping and I don't doubt human activity in camping context occasionally attracts the occasional nearby and curious creature, but it doesn't make sense to me that it would be strong enough an attractant to pull 'em away from the serious job of getting real food, and might in fact, for all we know, be a distraction or an annoyance to them as they would presumably depend on their prey being at ease and not alerted by strange noises from nearby human camping activities.
So, as Robert implies, rare like lighting but there are areas that lighting hits with some predictability and with more frequency than other seemingly identical locations, and once science understood electricity people could predict where those places would be...and I think that once we more comprehensively understand BF's natural and instinctive behaviors we might be able to predict where we could apply the proper and appropriate techniques that will allow us to document and study them, which would bring me a lot of satisfaction. Cheers

dog4u,

I agree with most of what you say.

How many people get struck by lightning every year? A handful? A dozen? 20? 40? I don't know. How do we know it actually happens?

Has anyone ever taken a photograph of someone being struck by lightning? No. But we have eyewitnesses, and the circumstantial evidence that it has happened.

That seems enough to satisfy most people.

Thank you for your comments and input. I really appreciate it. I assume that you are positive that it cannot be a sense beyond the normal 5 that Humans possess because you simply don't believe that other "extra" senses exist anywhere in living creatures?
Probably a dumb question, because obviously that is what you are saying.

I think I may agree, as I have never seen it proved that extra senses other than the 5 are real. But I thought that maybe just a hint of some kind of perception or intuition not based on the standard set of senses could help account for Sasquatch being able to remain perhaps the only undocumented mammal in North America, which I think is a feat nothing short of astounding.

Yes, it is.

There are people who believe that they possess a sixth sense, but I am not one of them. However, when you combine the five that they do have, and amplify them to a hundred degrees higher than ours, isn't that like a sixth sense, in a way?

That is well said. Now I need to ponder that one a bit!

I think it is true that any expression of sensory acuity that is beyond our rather limited abilities we tend to think as being mysterious. For example; there are many stories of dogs with e.s.p. reported when dogs will anticipate the return of their master's prior to our having any awareness. Later we discover the owner's car gives a particularly high pitched whine undetctable by us without sophisticated electronic devices that dogs can hear for miles. Not a 6th sense but it looks like it to us until we recognize that dogs have hearing acuity far beyond our own. How do you think dogs would feel about our ability to tell colors?
There's been a bit of chit chat about BF and infrasonic communications, and I think it has some merit. It's known in the animal world from a number of species who use it primarily for communications over longer distance and it has been shown in experiments to create an involuntary sense of foreboding in humans, similar to the instinctual reaction we experience when we encounter a low rumbling growl from a dark corner, which I think anyone could see would be a very usefull survival instinct. I sometimes think snoring is an adaptation to warn potential predators that no matter how tempting it might look, this monkey could mean trouble.

People are pretty poor animals. Sure we have a larger brain than most other animals but in just about everything else we are severely lacking. It is really difficult for us to understand how keen other animal's senses can be. Just like we see strength measured in muscle mass and other animals being MUCH stronger than thier appearance would imply to our brains.

The reference to trackers, hunters, and what not earlier is a bad example. Even the best hunters only spend limited time in the woods. They are better than most, but I think they would still fall FAR short of an animal that lives 24/7 in the woods in thier knowledge of the forests and wild areas.

Hi


Good point,

I think there are a few Researchers and Tracking folks that can understand there being out witted by BF, But the majority might have a problem with that, We being mankind think we are the b*lls, It is no way true,,, Just because animals can't use a microwave oven there not brain dead, after all they survive with no tools in places we need everything technologically possible, And the best we can do is maybe not get sick, hurt or die, point being, they have what they need to live in there world and we don't, But look what we got, Greed, Crime, Hate, Pollution, Disease, Famine, WAR, We got them beat by a mile Huh ???

Peace Brothers
Tim

Been hunting all my life and am a fair tracker, but ya, no comparison to BF is its ability to navigate the terrain and hide. All its physical abilities are superior to ours for sure.