Cryptomundo » Searching for Sasquatch - Using Ideas from Law Enforcement Part V.

Searching for Sasquatch - Using Ideas from Law Enforcement Part V.

Posted by: John Kirk on November 2nd, 2006

Part V

Dress to fit the environment, I am a great believer in blending in with the environment as it gives you the advantage of stealth when investigating and on surveillance. Those of you have been out in the woods with me, especially those from Ohio, Texas and British Columbia will know that I always wear camouflage or black when I am out on an investigation. I want to be so at one with my environment that it would be hard for a sasquatch to locate me. Dark green and khaki are two other colours that go well with most environments, but for goodness sake don’t wear oranges and reds unless it is in the fall or you are going to stick out like a sore thumb. Remember we have to presume that sasquatch is not colour blind and we want to remain as invisible as possible.

I would be carrying fruit with me on a serious investigation because should a sasquatch approach me or show aggressive behaviour, I would toss the fruit in its path to allow me a momentary distraction which may buy me time in withdrawing from the scene. Remember this is not Harry and the Hendersons, we are dealing with, but a very large heavyset hominid for whom there is no manual with details on its observed behavioural traits. You must err on the side of caution and withdraw cautiously if approached. I have several friends who have investigated sasquatch behaviour in the Kiamichi mountains of Oklahoma who have encountered unusually volatile and aggressive behaviour on the part of sasquatches. These behaviours left a deep impression on me and seriously influenced my thinking on how I would deal with one if confronted. Never turn your back on any potentially dangerous wildlife and withdraw furtively backwards with your eyes firmly fixed on the target. You’ve seen police and military units do this when pulling back and you and I should behave no differently in such circumstances.

I do not believe in killing a sasquatch to satisfy anybody’s curiosity. Killing one to get back at scientists who have disparagingly denigrated investigators for their interest in sasquatch over the years just does not cut it for me. We do not know if they are part of the genus homo, but from what I have seen of the female sasquatch in the Patterson/Gimlin film, I feel they very likely are. If you kill a member of the genus homo you are culpable for the felony of homicide. I do not doubt for a moment that anyone who kills a sasquatch, except in self-defense, would be prosecuted. There is no precedent for this so I am fairly certain that prosecutors will seek a trial to establish such a precedent. Heaven help anyone who shoots a sasquatch as you will be the guinea pig of whatever justice system is in your jurisdiction. Also you will be the target of every nut job on the planet who would seek to harm you for whatever crackpot reason they deem apt. Do you seriously want to take that risk?

Even if sasquatch is not of the genus Homo, because it is a rare and unknown species, prosecutors would very likely invoke all sort of endangered species protection laws to prosecute the killer of a sasquatch. Again this boils down to the need to have a trial to obtain a precedent and to set the tone for all future acts of violence upon sasquatch. People who advocate the killing of a sasquatch are clearly unaware of the legal turmoil they could be letting themselves in for. Killing a sasquatch to vindicate yourself and why you seek it is the worst reason in the world to down one and to terminate the life of one for scientific purposes is a crock. This animal is so rare and other than a few instances of aggression it appears to be largely peaceful, reclusive and benign. That’s more than I can say about some humans. We also have no idea as to how many there are a it is very possible that the killing of one sasquatch could have a cataclysmic effect on a population base for which there are nor statistics.

To be continued.

Part I is available here on Cryptomundo.

Part II is available here on Cryptomundo.

Part III is available here on Cryptomundo.

Part IV is available here on Cryptomundo.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 2nd, 2006 at 8:17 am and is filed under Abominable Snowman, Bigfoot, Cryptid Universe, Cryptozoology, Sasquatch, Skunk Apes, Yeti, Yowie. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

6 Responses to “Searching for Sasquatch - Using Ideas from Law Enforcement Part V.”

fuzzy responds: November 2nd, 2006 at 9:33 am
John, on those occasions where your friends “encountered unusually volatile and aggressive behaviour on the part of sasquatches”:

* Were there other squatches nearby, possibly a female or family group, that a male would defend?

* Were your friends possibly invading a well-established habitat, a “home” area?

* Were they in an orchard, crop field or waterway, interrupting squatch(es) feeding activity?

* Had your friends been call-blasting or otherwise challenging (?) squatches?

* Were your friends radiating primate pheromones?

* Were any of your friends menstruating females?

* Were your friends armed?

In short, were there circumstances that might have triggered squatches’ macho behavior, activities that we searchers should be aware of and avoid?

Could this be the subject of another posting here on Cryptomundo?

BTW, thanks for this fascinating series!
Fuz
chrisandclauida2 responds: November 2nd, 2006 at 10:38 am
Being from law enforcement, I love your series on the subject. I think it’s important that a standardisation occurs in regards to collection of evidence and investigation of sightings. a huge step forward would be for researchers to take simple courses on interviews and investigations. Regardless what type or subject the investigations are, the techniques will be invaluable.

With this said, we have to stop the conjecture about the homicide talk in regards to bigfoot.

Homicide should be called sapien-a-cide, just so everyone will shut up.

It’s called homicide because that’s what they decided to call it. That and every member of the homo genus is extinct except sapien or us. Oh, and a tiny annoying fact is homo is latin for man, not for bipedal or hairy bipedal. Don’t you just hate those little annoying facts that cant be dismissed?

The genus pan and gorilla (chimps and gorillas) are believed by some not to be actual separate genus (or geni plural?) because the two have too many physical similarities to the genus homo and should actually be apart of the genus homo along with
Homo sapien
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis,
etc etc so forth and so on.

Regardless of these folks’ feelings, they are separate because there are differences. It is accepted scientific fact that the lines are drawn where they are. This can’t be changed because some bigfooters want bigfoot to be homo so they can call it homicide if one is killed. Otherwise we would have people in prison for homicide because of killing chimps or gorillas. Some think killing these animals should be homicide anyways but that is a different conversation.

So because of the same reasons pan and gorilla are different, so will it be that what ever bigfoot is called will be for the differences. The creature may be included with a genus already established or thought extinct or a new one will be named.

Through all my confusing diatribe a simple fact remains. The subtle differences that make chimps and gorillas different than humans will make bigfoot different. Thus killing bigfoot isn’t homicide. It’s just something said by those on the no kill side of the issue.

Whatever the side of the kill no kill debate you’re on, use facts and emotional persuasion to make your case, not made up catch phrases to try to scare others to your side with half truths or things that cant be true YET.

Some day bigfoot might be Homo lost or Homo whatever the guy whose name found it is. Then you can say it’s homicide.

The whole premise of “if you killed bigfoot it would be a crime cause…” is conjecture. In some states, it is perfectly legal to kill animals not managed through hunting laws. In other states, if it isn’t managed it’s off limits. Still others have a mix where certain nuisance animals can be taken any time.

Calling it a crime because it is an endangered species is another scare tactic. No one has a clue about its numbers. What is a natural number of sustained breeding populations? Is that number more or less than the census? How do you take such a census? These questions all have to be answered BEFORE any laws can be made. Until laws are made there is no law.

Of course those who see fit to expand their view of the constitution or laws on the books or an agency’s power when it suits them can probably come up with laws that can be applied to the death of a squatch.

When people assume any law will be broken when a squatch is killed they are acting as ignorant as those who assume no law will be broken.

The end fact is no bigfoot has been proven to be exist. No behavior has been cataloged and no numbers have been calculated. Until this is done no one can say what is an endangered species a crime what isn’t a one or what should be a one.

The kill no kill debate is just that, a debate. Till a creature is captured or killed it is fantasy. Why it isn’t considered by mainstream science as at least possible is anyone’s guess. We have more evidence of the existence of these creatures than we have on almost all of the recently resurrected animals and many newly discovered ones. The simple indiscernible fact is we need a body. Living or not we need a body.

I have heard all the fantastic stories out of the kiamichi mountains, the big thicket and the PNW. All these up close encounters with aggressive creatures. They are watched hours on end and NO PROOF. All I have to say is if these things are really happening with the regularity discussed and dependability discussed, PULL YOUR HEADS OUT AND GET THE PROOF. I really get tired of the hostility received when we ask “where’s the proof?” Why did you see this animal on and off for hours and no proof? If you see them every time why no proof? The name calling and down right grouchiness returned to these questions is uncalled for. Get the film, the pics, the specimen or don’t get mad when your stories are questioned.

If real fantastic encounters are occurring in which the unseen creature is believed to be a squatch then true scientific process demands that it be listed as assumed or unknown not definitive. Doing so destroys credibility.

I’m not directing comments about the lack of proof from the encounters to any one person. I’m not calling anyone out or fronting anyone off. This said, I gotta ask some of these people how can you go out to these areas and have these encounters on purpose and forget your camera every time.

Take some advice from out friend Bill the CT bigfoot researcher. A nicer guy you will not find. He drills it into anyone who will listen. Take your camera!
Jeffro responds: November 2nd, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Something I’ve always wondered about as well. How can so many people, especially this day and age, see this creature, yet everytime there’s no pictures taken.
iftheshoefits responds: November 2nd, 2006 at 6:23 pm
John this has been a great series. I like fuzzy would like to know more about the aggressive behaviour in the Kiamichi area. And chrisandclaudia2, I very much appreciate hearing the counter argument to John’s no kill stance, even though I stand more on the no kill side myself because of there being no idea on population numbers of these creatures. I can understand the desire for irrefutable proof of the existence of Sasquatch, but what that will constitute, none of us can say.
BigNote responds: November 2nd, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Actually, it would be a simple matter for any competent attorney to show that the killing of a sasquatch does not qualify as homicide. Here’s why; regardless of the eventual judicial determinations made as to the legal status of sasquatches in the unlikely event that anyone was ever brought to trial for such a killing, in our legal system we have a concept (the exact term for which escapes me) to the effect that a citizen cannot be prosecuted for a crime the commission of which they had no reasonable expectation was illegal. In the case of sasquatches, since they are not scientifically recognized by society at large as actually existing, it could easily be argued that a hunter had no way of knowing that killing one would be considered homicide. That alone would be more than enough to get the first sasquatch killer off the hook legally.

But it does sort of beg the question doesn’t it? When we, as a society, finally do get around to recognizing the sasquatch as a legitimate species, what legal status will we accord them? I have to think that we will not give them any more rights than we do to chimps, bonobos or gorillas. I am not morally comfortable with that conclusion, but then neither am I morally comfortable with the legal status we accord to our other near relations. Ought we accord a special status to the sasquatch simply because he strides about in an upright stance similar to our own? I think not. All evidence indicates that the sasquatch is cognitively probably about on par with the other great apes. My thinking is that we will have to use cognition as the determining factor in how we evaluate the rights of non-human species and that if this is so, regardless of the special affinity we may feel for the sasquatch because of our shared upright form of locomotion, we cannot morally give her any more rights than we give to the other great apes.
hiram responds: November 15th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Quote: “I have several friends who have investigated sasquatch behavior in the Kiamichi mountains of Oklahoma who have encountered unusually volatile and aggressive behavior on the part of sasquatches.”

These creatures are very nearly human, a lot closer to us than being the “damned apes” some like to call them.

You friends are right. One troupe of these animals that resides in the area of Kiamichis near the Le Flore and McCurtain County lines poses a danger to anyone approaching them. They have good reason for their attitudes. And, like primates of all sizes, they have the ability to remember, and can especially remember individual humans.

It is only a matter of time before some unsuspecting lost and undeserving hunter catches the wrath of these animals while trying to make his way out of mountains in the darkness, and while their real targets are at home drinking beer in front of the computer.

Think this might be outlandish! Hide and watch.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Loch Ness, and More

Searching for Sasquatch - Using Ideas from Law Enforcement Part V.

Spread the Word!

6 Responses to “Searching for Sasquatch - Using Ideas from Law Enforcement Part V.”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

T 84 Viagra

taking viagra after the expiration date

cheap gerneric viagra

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills!

cheap gerneric viagra

cheap gerneric viagra

cheap gerneric viagra

Non Prescription Viagra

Viagra Illegal Phillipines

Side Affects Of Viagra

Buy Viagra Online At

taking viagra woman

Viagra And Cannabis

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills!

Viagra Bon Marche

taking viagra woman

Impotence Viagra

cheap gerneric viagra