My name is Shannon Gilmour. I am an indie Christian author
who has survived to tell a story...

To some it is one whopper of a tale, but to me, I can only remain true to my experience. I detail that experience in the book entitled 'Non Existent Entities'.

To read my detailed encounters, order my books at Amazon.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

The reality is, all is not as it seems

David Paulides makes it known that he does not suggest that Sasquatch has anything to do with the missing persons in and around provincial parks. This is left up to the reader to determine for themselves, but I have to caution, the evidence is not just merely speculation. David Paulides makes a good case to steer the reader's attention in the direction of the unknown possibilities, and allows the evidence to make the determined factual reasoning that can only conclude one thing; that Sasquatch abductions are a very strong possibility.

However, there is still one element that remains missing in David Paulides investigations and without this one question answered, all these cases will remain shrouded in mystery. You cannot solve a case to its conclusion without having a motive. In order to understand why one needs to understand who they are dealing with.

For me in trying to understand the why, leads me to more questions: (I have yet to read the book, these are my own questions based on the online interviews given by David Paulides.)

  • Why the need for secrecy?
                                 It is clear that no evidence can be found leading up to the abductions or after the fact. All evidence in the way of a path or visible foot prints are diminished or not existent. The person is rendered incapacitated in some way either too scared or unable to speak or scream out by some other means. How can sasquatch cover up any evidence of being in the area while keeping its victim silent? All animals leave some sort of trace behind; foot prints, hair, scat, broken limbs on saplings, a scent trail, scuff marks in the dirt or sand, upturned moss and rocks in river beds or along its banks. Something should help find these people, but in these cases where sasquatch is a possible suspect, nothing.

Even human predators make mistakes. How can sasquatch- a forest dwelling animal/creature make no mistakes, even the best trained criminal profilers working in the field cannot detect? FBI forces trained to deal with the human nature could not find these people, and forest rangers, trained to deal with animal nature could not find these missing people.

                                  Why does sasquatch not use its size and intimidating stance as a means to get what it wants or needs? Animals in the wild by nature use their size to their advantage, to prevent themselves (or their offspring) from being eaten or to hunt for food.  Most apex preditors will use their size and bulk to intimidate their prey. It stands to reason that because of a bear's size it does not need to hunt in packs as compared to wolves. Wolves and coyotes do not always hunt in packs, but this is dependant on the size of their prey. Wild animals usually attack and kill thier prey onsite. They do not carry their quarry off live. While some animals such as cougars do drag thier kill back to a protected area, in most cases the food is left behind and returned to later. When an animal needs to nourishing young, it is not unusual for the adult to bring back food to the den site but most often these are pieces and if it can't bring back small amounts, the adult will bury their prey (or leave it) to  bring the offspring back to the site. (This ensures the safety of the offspring from potential predators as having smells of rotting and decaying meat in around where they sleep poses a safety risk.)

Maybe the question of secrecy is not the best word by definition to choose, however looking into how these disappearances occured, one is led to believe that there is at least some sort of element of secrecy involved. This leads me to believe that there is a deliberate reasoning for the need of secrecy because animals by nature to not prowl around in secret, hunting in such a way that leaves no trace evidence. Let me give you an example:

When I throw a stick for my dog Mugs, he is not careful of which path he chooses. He watches my hand to release the object and with his eyes he follows the projectile through the air. He may have some conclusive reasoning in which direction he thinks the object should land and heads in that direction prematurely, but his eyes are fixated on that object in the air. He is not watching his footing or picking the best possible route. When he arrives at the spot of where the stick lands, he picks it up, wrestles with it, gnaws on it on the spot and is not mindful of the grass or terrain underneath his feet. He does not care about the damage he maybe causing to my manicured lawn, he's just being who he is- a playful fun loving, easy going, free spirited dog.

When I toss a bone for Mugs this pattern of play does not change. The only thing that changes is that he does not bring the bone back to me, but lies down on the ground and enjoys every bit of morsel and nugget of calcium. He will sit there for hours in the same spot enjoying his quiet time as his teeth crack against hard bone.

In the case of a wild animal, it follows the trail of scent to find other members of its pack or to find food. In doing this it is not careful of not being seen, in the way of methodical secrecy. It's motive to try to remain hidden is to go undetected for as long as it can in order that it can make that kill shot.  It does not cover up its tracks. Often times its own foot prints can be found on top of the tracks of its prey. Animals are not careful creatures and often times are clumsy, noisy and vocal and have to use the elements of its surroundings to enable a successful hunt.

Animals whether they are wild or domestic are somewhat predictable in nature, and so too humans- and so too sasquatch, but in order to get to that point in reasoning we need to revisit the question of why is this creature so secretive.

I live in an area that is full of wildlife, I see the evidence almost daily, squirrels, deer, birds, fox, moose, cat, cows, they all have thier set paths in life. They do not chase after the wind, they meander in their set directions for one of four things; to find water, food, shelter, or a mate.  Usually with any animal thier meanderings can be seen as wear patterns as a path is worn into the ground from constant use. I can even see wear patterns in my lawn from Mugs. If Sasquatch were an animal, then why do we not see these types of wear patterns from their commings and goings? It does not matter how elusive they maybe, what concerns me is that when tracks are found, there is usually only one or a few set of foot prints to indicate a family has possibly passed through the area, but this pattern is not a worn pattern that indicates constant use of the area. Why? I think it has something to do with the reason why they are so secretive. Careful, let's not confuse elusiveness with secrecy.

To be continued...