Leaderboard

Well...................we better all have proof. From the outside looking in? They see us all as pixie believers arguing over the color of their wings.

I've seen one pregnant sasquatch in June of 1974. I'll describe her at the end of this post. I did a quick Google search and learned that both gorillas and chimps have fertility cycles similar to humans. Gorillas are a few days shorter on average and chimps are a few days longer on average, but both fall within the range of what is considered normal for humans. So it's safe to say bigfoot can mate any time of year. A successful pregnancy, however, may more regularly result at some times of the year than at others. There are factors that can influence whether or not a pregnancy occurs. It is possible that there is some dietary compound with a natural contraceptive property available at certain times of the year. It is also possible that there are dietary compounds that enhance fertility available at certain times. Both types exist within the pharmacopeia of various human cultures (both for female and male). Fertility is most likely influenced, however, by the overall availability of nutrition and the level of environmental stress. As natural and necessary as it is, pregnancy is a biologically expensive and risky process. Too little nutrition and too much environmental stress can interrupt a pregnancy, or result in the birth of unhealthy young with limited survival prospects. There is also risk to the mother during and shortly after the pregnancy. Over time, evolution has ensured that those prone to conceive at risky times and under risky circumstances are less likely to transmit their genes into successive generations. Another factor is the ability to manage risk. Animals have a wide variety of behavioral traits that mitigate risk and optimize chances for successful propagation under otherwise risky circumstances. Many of the animals that fall into this category are dependent, however, on specialized situations to carry off their respective strategies. Take them out of their natural environment and they're unable to procreate. And this brings us to the true survivors - those that are able to adapt to risk, stress, and changing circumstances to be fruitful and multiply regardless. This may mean relocation to more hospitable circumstances, achieving control over the immediate environment (shelter, safety from predators), or finding a way to guarantee steady nutrition. The most successful humans fall into this category, and I believe sasquatch do as well (the available evidence convinces me that they are near-human). Certainly there are those in our own species who are less adaptive - and earlier in our evolution they would likely not have been able to pass down their genes (this still applies in some cultures). I, myself am nearsighted and may not have survived in the past unless I were able to offset this with some trait of value to others that would ultimately allow me to pass on my genes. Then the invention and ready availability of corrective lenses changed this equation - and now we have a higher percentage of near-sighted people in our population. In our industrialized society, with all of its safety nets we have similarly changed the Darwinian calculus by achieving socialized control over risk on behalf of all. We have mitigated the consequence of traits and behaviors that used to limit survival and encouraged behaviors that actually rely on the social safety nets as a means of survival and procreative prosperity. We have taken on a collective risk, however, because if there is ever a major change to society's ability to maintain its safety nets, we will have a rapid Darwinian event that will be catastrophic for many. This isn't a political argument - I'm just stating likely consequences to social interdependence. The same reasoning applies to sasquatch. A social group may combine its resources and skills to promote successful procreation, but there is a limit to how far this strategy can carry them - otherwise there would be communities of them so large that their existence and presence would be a matter of fact, rather than conjecture. None of this answers the original question about when they mate, it just defines the set of conditions that form the box in which they do so. I mentioned at the beginning of this post that I had seen a pregnant female sasquatch in 1974. I was alone at our campsight fishing from the bank of a small lake in Nevada County, California. My parents and my two younger brothers had taken the puppy we'd brought along and hiked up to a higher altitude lake for the day. I'd just had my leg removed from a full length cast and wasn't up to the hike because the still-healing break was still green and I was rebuilding both muscle and agility. I was fourteen and bored. There weren't many people around, though a couple of folks were apparently mlazily chopping wood a couple of whacks at a time at different spots nearby. Apparently they were having a race to see who could chop down a tree the slowest. All of the fish in the lake were apparently under 15" in length, not worth catching to eat. There were a lot of them, though, and it only took a couple of minutes between casting and reeling in the fish. So I decided to see how many I could catch and release. As it turned out somewhere between twelve and fifteen per hour. I was removing the hook from a trout (ever so gently ) and glanced up. To my astonishment, there was an unkempt woman crouching on the opposite bank less than 60 yards from me. My first thought was: "Where the heck did the hillbilly woman come from?" I was pretty observant and people just didn't step ten feet out of the trees and squat in plain sight without me noticing. But she had, timing her movement at a point where she knew I was preoccupied. I had seen bigfoot before this, but had never yet heard the terms "bigfoot" or "sasquatch" or heard "them" talked about, so by this point I knew they weren't regular people, but still had no idea what they were. To my first perception, she was very stocky, was perhaps 5'10", had unwashed and uncombed caramel-blonde hair (jaw length on the sides and back and bangs over the eyes), and was wearing deer hides with the mottled dark and light hair still attached (unusually light in spots - the same caramel color as the hair on her head). I at first thought that a stiff deer-hide shawl was draped across her fore-arms and chest making her appear even bulkier than she must be under her clothes. She was squatting on the sloped bank with her heels flat on the ground and about three inches upslope from her toes. She wasn't sitting on her heels with her weight on the balls of her feet as I might. She was staring at the fish as I looked up from removing the hook and was about to throw it back. Mechanically, I tossed the fish a couple of feet into the lake. As she watched the fish go, she lowered her forearms some and I realized in shock not only that she was not wearing a deerhide shawl, but that she was not wearing deerhides at all. She was covered in dark and light hair. It was shorter on the tops of her forearms, but a little shaggy underneath. Her female chest anatomy was very prominent, did not have any sag and was covered with hair the same length as that on her forearms, which was what gave me the impression that she was wearing a shawl while her forearms were at first parallel with her breasts and motionless. At this point she looked up, made eye contact, and realized that I was staring at her. As I was looking back and asking myself: "Does she have a beard?" (I could now tell that the shadowed area underneath her nose was covered with short dark hair - she was very square-jawed, but her jaw did not protrude), she rose up about a foot and half, partially unflexing her knees, bringing her torso a little more vertical, and lowered her upper arms to her sides. At this point I could see her abdomen and had a clearer view of her chest. She was barrel-shaped. Her ribcage and hips were approximately the same width. Her legs and arms were clearly very well muscled underneath the hair and I wouldn't have considered her at all flabby except that her abdomen protruded an inch or two beyond her ribcage. What really caught my attention, though, was her chest (did I mention that I was fourteen?). She appeared to me to be in her late teens. Her "anatomy" projected fully as far to her front as her elbows would and she would not have been able to bring her arms straight forward without compressing it on both sides. There was absolutely no sag and the anatomy looked as if it had grown to an unwieldly size very recently. The skin on the top of the anatomy seemed taught and the anatomy was so full that the bottoms of it was held out from her ribcage by at least an inch and a half instead of laying down against it. I didn't realize it at fourteen, but looking back, she must have been pregnant and very close to delivery. Her mammary glands were clearly as full as they could possibly get and were unrelieved. Her abdomen protruded a little, but not much more than a human female's would midway through her second trimester. Given the state of her chest anatomy it seems likely to me that it was her first pregnancy due to the lack of any sagging. She wasn't as gravid as a human woman near delivery would be, but given her overall stockiness, even a very large human baby could have been carried within the proportions I observed. I raised my hand to wave at her and she got a scared look, backed up two steps, and turned partially toward the trees. I called out: "Wait!" and started toward the dam about twenty feet from my side of the lake. By the time I got to the dam she had turned her back and went up the deer trail that I knew traversed the slope through the trees on the other side. She never did straighten to where she was fully erect, but she was going up a fairly steep slope. By the time I reached the other side (less than a minute, even walking carefully with my leg) she was well out of sight. As I stood where she had been, looking up the trail, I remember thinking that I had been stupid to throw away the fish and wondered what would have happened if I had carried it across with me and offered it to her. I thought about following the trail to see if I could find her, but knew I wouldn't be able to handle it with my leg (I'd been run over by a drunk driver four months earlier and had had a complete fracture of the tibia and fibula). I started to get a little nervous because there was no way I could run if I needed to and I thought that if she were out there, there also had to be at least one male who wouldn't appreciate my interest in her. I turned around and went back across the dam. There were several other incidents during the week we spent camping there that I will share over time. I suppose I should post the siting portion of this in the appropriate thread as well.

Maybe Sasfooty can play a little Barry White music in her neck of the woods?