@walktall
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Discovered another person stealing WG’s material;
Hoping that these people can be prevented from taking advantage of SC.
I was aware of the site WG mentioned and wondered about it. There is another site calling itself “Sasquatch Chronicles Show” that you may wish to investigate if it is not authorized.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfOWZzS0icY4m9WWwlawpyQ/videos.I got a similar impression from this incident, and actually came to the forum to post a link to the story. She was disabled, but not taken: maybe she interfered with a stalk or hunt and was neutralized? She took a nasty hit, but at least she’s alive.
I would propose that the ‘Sweet & low’ and ‘flute-player’ designations refer to the tendency of people to anthropomorphize, i.e., to attribute human characteristics to non-human creatures. Whether intentionally, so as to advocate protecting the cryptid, or unintentionally as a projection of their sympathy for fellow living creatures, I believe this tendency impairs one’s ability to judge the risks of making contact with the creatures and predict behavior.
Native American culture developed after generations of people living in intimate contact and harmony with nature, and their survival left little room for error in the evaluation of behavior and predator risk. The modern tendency to anthropomorphize has been materially aided by the profusion of animated programming, e. g., Disney, Yogi Bear, in which animals become play-friends, entertainers and spokesmen. But I won’t blame it all on our present culture, because the literature of fables and fairy tales also employed animals as actors with human characteristics.
I commend Knobby for noting the impact of the development of firearms, and the sasquatches’ perception of the increased lethality of human contact as a significant development of human/sasquatch relations. Our technology has raised us to the status of apex predator, and thus made us less likely to confront these creatures except on terms chosen by them.
I’ll happily edit the word “sole” from my response. Substitute “main” instead. My point remains: other researchers, including Mr. Green, use the term “ape” in their discussions. Perhaps it is their attempt to move the inquiry from the realm of legend to that of science.
Calling them one thing or another does not dispose of the morality issue, so I am reluctant to share your view on this: no big deal. Perhaps the issue can best be resolved in a discussion with Mr. Brown on a future appearance.
Since I was not involved with founding the group or writing its mission statement, I am unwilling to infer that they chose that term so as to rationalize killing one. Their mission statement uses the “sasquatch” and “bigfoot” terminology, as well as “wood ape” and “unlisted primate species.”
I regret that my posts indicated I was perplexed, and also unfamiliar with the research of Mr.’s Green and Byrnes and Dr. Meldrum. I would expect most people on this site have been exposed to such fundamental literature on the topic.
That said, I am content to yield to you the last word on this tempest-in-a-teapot. Thank you for your efforts in moderating the forums amid so many controversial topics. Best wishes.
I respectfully offer you the break you request. I intended no discourtesy. I was recoiling from the assertion that NAWAC’s sole motive in choosing their name was to somehow make it easier to rationalize killing one. Jim Lansdale’s Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Organization doesn’t seem to need this kind of PC veil. I am not aware that anyone considers Apes to be fair game, though admittedly they are poached in Africa. I truly don’t understand what you found objectionable in my comments. I do not come to this site for drama or confrontation.
A researcher who has appeared on this site, Todd Neiss, has an organization named the American Primate Conservancy. I believe he is of the no-kill persuasion. I’ve heard the term “damned dirty ape” somewhere near here. Different cultures, or (forgive me) subcultures, can call this phenomena anything they want. It won’t have any real importance until time comes to bestow a formal taxonomic designation on it or them, and that will come only after detailed scientific analysis of their anatomy and DNA.
It continues to be a hot-button topic that quickly devolves to animated assertions. So many cultures have unique names for this (or these) cryptids: are we now going to critique them all?
Until these creatures are subject to rigorous scientific analysis as to biology, anatomy, and DNA, all assertions are hypotheses, awaiting testing and verification under the scientific method. That is how zoology works. I’ll respect everyone’s right to an opinion. However, there are some real issues that cannot be answered via observation and/or spoor analysis.
It took society a long time to accept the value of anatomical study of human beings. The pioneers in the field were subject to persecution & censure. Grave robbing supplied early scientists with opportunity to study anatomy. Later on, the bodies of executed criminals served the need. Now, people donate their bodies via testamentary gifts. Those cadavers make medical education possible.
We cannot “dehumanize” these creatures any more than we can “en-humanize” them on the basis of opinions: only under the strictures of zoology, biology, and scientific method. Then we will be able to discuss the morality of respecting them as fellow living creatures, perhaps blood relatives, perhaps not.
This, from today’s news, might be relevant to the discussion:
http://news.yahoo.com/homo-sapiens-sex-extinct-species-no-one-night-012711275.html?soc_src=copy
Even at this advanced age, I still wonder about the “nobility” or civility of Homo sapiens.
Excellent responses all: thanks.
It seems it is an old Scottish invention that functioned like a portable blind as much as camo. Still doubting it fools animals as much as it does humans.
@Steven J: Well-played, sir.
I would define “flute-playing” as the practice of anthropomorphism, by which civilized or humane properties are attributed to a creature in the absence of disciplined scientific observation.
Since these creatures have not been subject to behavioral study, predictions – let alone conclusions – about their temperament and disposition are presently based upon projection as much as observation.
I believe it is entirely natural for people to do this, and the extent that a person has experience with nature will influence their likelihood of making such projections. If one’s experience is limited to Disney movies and sanitized nature programs, behaviors of apex predators might not be appreciated for their danger.
I believe that circumstantial evidence indicates the existence of some cryptid.
This was recently published, and is a remarkably sensible presentation folks here might enjoy:
Truthfully, I sometimes hear background music when I read some posts, anything from “Twilight Zone” to “Jaws”……..
Edward Gein, Jeff Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy: what where they – person or monster?
Anecdotal stories from many sources, including Outlaws’ Taboo adventures, indicate “monster” for me, not that “person” necessitates any redeeming qualities. Fair game, I’m thinking.
@ Northfork
Excellent, informed post.
The weight class and aggressiveness of these creatures puts them in a category of African big-game, and nobody would conduct such a hunt alone. There is good information that the team approach is used by the special operations people now assigned to that problem. Most likely, they leave their 5.56’s at home. I know I posted a link to “stopper rifles” further back, but more practically I was thinking something like:http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Firearms/bigbore/1895SBL.asp
As a good brush gun with fast reloading & sufficient muzzle energy. this type has many advantages.
