Trogluddite

Sésquac
  • Content count

    923
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

205 Outstanding!

About Trogluddite

  • Rank
    Chiye-tanka

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    psu72521@aol.com
  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?
    No

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Varied; one of them is now Bigfoot. I knew about him in the 70's from "In Search Of," The 6 Million Dollar Man," and other TV shows. I completely forgot about him from the 1980s until about 2009 or 2010, when I saw Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, Monster Quest, and similar shows. My current descent into madness (my wife's words) followed.

    Also, I adopted my screen name circa 2001 and before I had any interest in Bigfoot. It is a political commentary, as is my e-mail address.

Recent Profile Visitors

753 profile views
  1. Arrived in North America 100,000 years earlier than previously believed, but only got to Central and South America in the last 20,000 years due to traffic in LA, probably...
  2. My $0.02, I clearly heard wood-on-wood knocks in both files. Not human hammering, or distant car doors, or gunfire (no echo). It makes me think of a shillelagh, which can serve as a modest walking stick, a night stick for probing around in tangles and such, or a club to knock some lout over the head with. What's problematic is that there are so few encounters where a Bigfoot is seen with a club or stick. I am approaching 1,000 reports and I'm fairly confident that the number of encounters in which a Bigfoot is seen, shillelagh in hand, is less than 20. That being said, maybe it doesn't carry it's club around all the time. You prepare for the mission you're going on. If you're foraging roots and berries, you don't need a club. If you're travelling by yourself from point A to point B, you don't need a club to communicate. If you're solo hunting, all you need to do is bushwhack a deer and wring it's neck, no club needed. But a Bigfoot that's hunting or traveling with a group, or serving as the outer ring of security would know it's mission and - since it knows it may need to communicate - grab a stick before moving out.
  3. Here's a possible interesting twist on this question. There have been some well-publicized hoaxes and/or Bigfoot researchers stepping in the Bigfoot droppings (angel DNA, anyone?). In addition, some aspects of how the Finding Bigfoot show is produced might create a negative, rather than positive, perception of the question of whether Bigfoot exists or not. So the question. In three areas where I recently finalized (for now) my data - New Hampshire, Maine, and northeastern Canada - there is an arc of increasing sightings through the 2000s, then a steep drop-off of reported sightings in the 2010s. It's now getting late in this decade. Is the drop off of reported encounters a sign of fewer Bigfoot or the impact of hoaxes and bad PR?
  4. Good point to reinforce occasionally.
  5. ^ Ok, thanks. Just to be clear (as others may be seeing something else), the only thing I saw was the face on the rock. That's what looks photo-shopped, somehow, to me - like a face was placed on a rock with similar coloring.
  6. ^ Just curious, that's photo-shopped in, right?
  7. Art, there's no resemblance to Patty as Patty wasn't a blonde - oh wait, you mean the dark shadowing area behind McGyver and the blonde with the big hair? ;-)
  8. Shadow, SWWASAS, I don't doubt that the little ones hitch a ride. The encounters of young ones are just so few and far between. I just finished plugging some more encounters in, so since I posted those numbers, I'm up to 977 encounters. Encounters w/juveniles make up 4-5% of the reported encounters and encounters with an infant are literally 1 in 1,000. Just thought to look up something. Interestingly, only 9 encounters involve a female, with or without a juvenile, that's not accompanied by a male. When I broaden to include females encountered with males, it goes up to 20 encounters. So seeing a clearly identifiable female is rarer than encountering a juvenile. Of course, if witnesses would just get closer and check out the plumbing, I wouldn't have 803 reports where the gender field is blank.
  9. I can see it now. There you are, sitting on the bench in the local jail with all the (excuse the language, but its a quote) mean, nasty, ugly looking people who are mother rapers, father stabbers, father rapers, and they look at you and say, "what are you in for?" And you go, "Litterin..." and they all move away from you on the bench until you add, "And felony texting..." and they will all move back next to you on the bench. Not to make light of reckless driving, but there are already laws on the books. Felony texting charges will likely just be used to extort some extra money or a better guilty plea from poorly represented or unrepresented defendants.
  10. Well, I'm partial to the theory that like all wild animals, the juveniles know to freeze when danger is about. I'm sure others have had this experience, but my dog (a lab with all natural instincts lost to domestication) and I walked w/in 2 feet of a fawn that just stayed hunkered down in the tall grass. The magic database tells us the following: Out of 960 encounters, 43 (credible) encounters involve a juvenile or infant bigfoot. Only once was an obvious infant encountered; when it was it was accompanied by an adult. In nineteen encounters, juveniles are spotted in the company of adults. In these cases, the presumed young range in height from 3 to 5-6 feet. And while I haven't looked them all up for this post, I'm pretty sure that in all of them, the young bigfoot is walking on its own - i.e., not being carried, or clinging to the back, like an infant would be. Twenty-three times, presumed juveniles are encountered on their own, or at least without a visible adult nearby. Where height is reported, they range in height from 3 feet (your typical tow-headed kid?) to 6-7 feet (teenagers?). So - have the babies and the nursery well off the beaten track, stay very quiet and reclusive while you have an infant, then start going into "normal" mode once the infants reach the age/size where they're semi-capable?
  11. Funny. In my feed, this thread shows up right above the one for Grandpa's old-timey 1960s photos of bigfoot. As someone who was a young whipper-snapper in the 1960s, I'm a bit aghast that the decade is now one inhabited solely by "grandpas."
  12. Answering the question by not answering the question. Taking 85 reports which occurred in Maine and the environs of Canada immediately adjacent thereto (i.e., those parts of Canada South/East of the St. Lawrence Seaway) that include information about the season, 21 occurred from December through February. 9 occurred from March through May, although none actually occurred in March. 32 occurred from June through August. The remaining 23 occurred from September through November. That would seem to suggest a seasonal pattern where Bigfoot enter the area in the summer, remain through the fall, and start leaving in the winter, with perhaps a straggler or two who hangs in there through the spring until vegetation comes back. As an aside, once again I'm amazed at how these hoaxes, misinterpretations, and false stories are carefully lined up by the controlling conspiracy in the sky to create what looks like behavior one would expect from a living breathing creature.
  13. I took out the photo to save space, but I believe that photo is misleading. I know we're not the idyllic open skies of out west, were you can walk (drive?) for days and not see another person, but there are plenty of places where you can go and get lots of space and darkness in the east. The other factor is human activity. My outdoor lights stay on all night, but at 3:00 AM, bigfoot could walk up to the front door, moon the house, and be gone without being seen. I'm willing to bet that I could (back in my younger years) infiltrate or exfiltrate 85 % of the suburbs and rural areas if I moved out during the late night.
  14. I'm glad you qualified that ... perhaps its unfair, but some of the people who have written books claiming to be habituators have given the group a bad name. I agree that there are inherent problems in trying to figure out movement patterns from just using the reports, but I think that there is some value in it. (I know that's self-serving.) For example, even with all the reports, you can find groups of encounters defined by area and time that just present themselves, without manipulation of the data to make them appear.
  15. Half (or 3/4s?) of the board may not have any idea of what you are talking about. Might as well make a poster describing these, mimeograph it, then have runners distribute them.