Leaderboard

Depends on the bigfoot. Depends on the day. Depends on the circumstances. Bigfoot are not universally benign or universally malevolent. They have personalities, each, individually. From personal observation, they are the next thing to human. They are smart, and very capable of weighing risk vs reward. So let's say you've got a rogue male bigfoot. One that has been on the losing end of a competition for position within its group and has set out on his own rather than submit to the dominant male. One with a bad attitude to begin with and not much respect for humans either. Normally, a group of bigfoot, within their own range will attempt to live in harmony with humans occupying the area. They do their best to remain unseen, unnoticed, and are rewarded by the food items they can pilfer, living near fringe habitat that attracts prey species, etc. They are smart enough to know that if they start preying on children consistently, they will eventually be driven from the area by search parties, increased human vigilance, etc. They've likely learned this from experience as a culture. Same thing applies to humans camping close to a bigfoot group's, home ground. If they prey on a human there, they will be driven from a well established home area. Risk vs reward. Besides, camping humans discard plenty of food, so why mess with a food source of higher value? But the itinerant male with the bad attitude? He's got little to lose. He's not planning on sticking around anyway. He's out for himself, looking for a group he can take over, or a female he can take from an existing group. He passes through a human community, and prey is prey. Low risk, high reward. And if he is motivated by curiosity, he gets to satisfy his curiosity on a more intimate level than simply hanging out in the woods, grinning at playing children and restricting himself to only wondering what they might taste like. Yeah, there are benign, even good Samaritan, bigfoot out there. But you don't know which one is which. And it still comes down to risk vs reward. A bigfoot that might pass up an opportunity to prey on a human child one day, may choose not to on another day under other circumstances. There's nothing mystical about bigfoot. You just have to look at their life from their perspective and think through their motivations. Same thing you do naturally with the people you know on a daily basis. Read http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/cowman.htm. Look at it from the perspective of an itinerant male involved in an escalating one-upsmanship competition with the father of a family living in an isolated area. With each action it takes, consider its motivation at the time. I don't know if this story is real or not. I can't verify it. But it is internally consistent from a behavioral perspective.

Money has been funneling into BF research for a long time. Some of the notables are not giving their books away. Every time they speak at a conference they are selling books, footprint cast reproductions, or whatever sells, and you can be sure they are writing off the trips to conferences from their income taxes as a business expense. I know some are horrified they would soil themselves with money, but from a practical standpoint it is not all that bad. Perhaps more academics will take note, realize they are virtually unknown outside their of their scientific colleagues, write books that no one reads, and at some point realize they could change all of that by entering BF research. Suddenly they would be invited to speak at conferences, be autographing books, having their picture taken with the public, interviewed on television, and be seen on various BF documentaries. Admittedly their academic peers would look down their noses, but if BF research has any sort of monetary reward potential, it could start drawing in academics who are languishing in obscurity conducting "pure" science.

Then shot again.

Took use probably isn't the best measure of intelligence for a squatch. Tools serve the purpose of extending or magnifying one's inherent physical capabilities. A squatch's inherent physical capabilities obviate the need for many of the tools we find necessary.

And then set afire and rolled down a hill!

Survivors will be shot again...

Trespassers will be shot.

Got a plus from me Norse. My only comment with regards to this is from the original post: By Plan B I mean drive the Sasquatches out, or show aggression back (if shown), purchase a firearm, etc I live in suburbia and own a gun by default, you'd be uh.. irresponsibly unprepared without one IMO. I can't imagine living out in a remote/rural area and not having a means of self defense. Just my 2 cents.

A couple of things come to mind as I read this. 1. It is amazing how changing one's shape contributes to camouflage. My father hunted deer wearing a camo poncho and hat. When he sat down, he became a bump on the ground or a bush. No legs or arms to give a visible human outline. We tend to look for shapes and colors of what we expect to see. On different occasions he sat in the shade of a sapling beside a trail as animals moved VERY close to him. Once, he sat as a pair of coyotes stood inches from him. The male looked around Dad's head to see what was behind him. If BF curls up and changes it's shape, it becomes even harder to recognize because we aren't looking for bushes, rocks, or stumps. 2. I have twice 'lost' deer that were within feet of me. A friend and I were hunting and a buck bounced into a hayfield of waist high grass and dropped to it's belly before we could get off a shot. I stayed put to direct my friend who walked into the field to scare the buck out and, hopefully, we'd another shot. I could see the exact spot the deer dropped into. There was only grass for a hundred yards in each direction. We never did find that deer. Of course it moved on it's belly and managed to get away without us seeing it. My point is, if a stupid deer can do that, why are we surprised when something with some brains pulls it off. 17x7

An eyewitness report is nothing more than a starting point, not evidence! In order for it to be evidence, an available body of facts or information is required to indicate whether the subject matter is true or valid. Since the subject in question is an eyewitness report there are no body of facts or information other than what the eyewitness states. That report will need to be really scrutinized to determine if there are certain factors present. If the report is so far out of the realm of possibility, it should be set aside. If the report is in line with other reports that have been deemed worthy of further research then by all means follow up it. Anything physical gleaned from the investigation that cannot be explained is the actual evidence. That evidence now needs to be scientifically tested, falsified, and validated and then added to the puzzle. If the evidence is usable in solving the puzzle, then it will be added to that process. An anecdote is really nothing more than a starting point. Even if BF is proven to be an extant species the anecdote will not be proof of BF, it will just be proof that eyewitness did in fact see what he or she claimed to see! nothing more.

As far as I can tell there are no insects, lower order animals, birds, or fish that can perform the following * Dream up and build cities with towering buildings. * Compose beautiful symphonies. * Landed on the moon. and these are only a few of the things that humans are capable doing. I'd say that is being successful and then some.

. Looks like there is some disagreement as to what "testable" means in the context of the sighting reports. Let me just offer this comparison: If I want to prove that you saw a specific thing, at a specific time, in a specific place, when all I have is your description of it? You are right, such is not likely to be testable in a practical sense, when you are talking about a wild animal. I could stand in that same spot, at the same time each day from now to doomsday and still run the risk of it never happening again, ever. It might, but it also might require an effort of such duration so as to make it quite unlikely that me or anyone else could mount it. Lightning does indeed strike multiple times at the same location(and it also leaves hard evidence when it does). Even so, you're not likely to be standing there waiting for it to happen again, when it does recur. In this sense, I should add, it doesn't really matter if you know the identity of the witness, with any specificity. Nothing you can learn about the witness really changes your ability to confirm the sighting by witnessing a repetition of it. The sighting data is testable in a much greater sense, and I think it is this point that opponents get in the weeds about. Ignore the first definition, and think of it this way: Any widely reported phenomena, if it occurs over a long enough period (and BF reports do) show indicators of credibility that do emerge. The more these data points repeat themselves, the greater the indicators of credibility. With wildlife observations too, behaviors that confirm parallels between known animals, and crypto-species, the greater the probability of truthfulness credibility. Yes, a small number of people in collusion (knowingly or unknowingly) can create common narratives. Experience has shown investigators of all kinds of phenomena that this degree of consistency is likely not possible for pure fabrications across such large spans of time and distance, or across such disparate categories of race, age, ethnicity, occupation and experience. To the extent these data points ARE hoaxed, the results are stilted, rote, contrived and without other supporting indicators of credibility. In this very real and scientific sense, sighting reports are testable. To say such is beyond human ability underestimates both human acumen and history, profoundly.

This is an interesting Interview by AW, she's interviewing a Lady Called Liz Mugenthaler, President of the Fauna Communications Research Institute Here's the bets bits. http://www.oregonbig...etter/10_07.php Autumn: To your knowledge, has anyone ever conducted a study of infrasound in large primates, like gorillas? Liz: NO (Editor's note: Liz's very succinct answer here, in my opinion, says it all. Research into the infrasound capabilities of even KNOWN animals is still somewhat in its infancy. - Autumn) Autumn: Is it possible that gorillas might use infrasound for communication? (Compared to other animals you've studied that use infrasound, are there - to your knowledge - the proper biomechanics in place for a gorilla to do so?) Liz: Any large mammal has the potential to generate infrasound. Autumn: What have you discovered about HUMAN physical response to animal-generated infrasound? Liz: Infrasound, at certain frequencies, (18-21 Hz) generates certain physical effects in humans, including causing ones hair to stand on end, feelings of fear or terror, your eyeballs to shake or see mirages, and other effects. Tiger infrasound can temporarily paralyze you, which is all the time a tiger needs! Bodily infrasound effects are a well documented phenomenon, first discovered by NASA and Russian space sciences in the 1960's. Autumn: For years, Bigfoot researchers have surmised that Sasquatch may use infrasound as a deterrent to humans; also, as a means of confusing or disabling prey. Are there instances in your research which show animals using infrasound for these purposes? Liz: As is shown by tiger research, it is certainly possible for an animal to use infrasound either as a deterrent or a hunting technique. Autumn: What are your thoughts on the existence of unknown bipedal primates? Liz: While I have never had an experience, nor have I read any scientific journal on this creature, I think it is certainly plausible that it exists. More importantly, based upon the number of sightings, and based upon other instances of purported evidence, it is a scientific question that should be answered in an unbiased fashion, without fear of condemnation. Science should be neither positively biased in which a researcher wants it to be true, nor negatively biased in which a researcher does not think it is true, or is afraid to confront it because it is novel, or fearful of peer review. For instance, for 100's of years it was reported that there was a small black rhino in the forests of Java. Naturalists in the 1830's mention its existence. But it was 1998 before a picture (head shot) of one was taken by a trip camera. If you can't find a 3500 lb rhino in the small forests of Java, how is one supposed to find a 600 lb, and apparently intelligent, humanoid in thousands of square miles of pristine forest? I truly believe that if science took this seriously, it would be a credit not only to those naturalists (witnesses) that have reported it, but to the science of biology/zoology itself. To prove finally that biology and zoology is genuinely unbiased. As it stands, the fact that no biologist/zoologist(s) from a (some) major universities have ever attempted a full, funded, genuine scientific expedition is an embarrassment to rest of the scientific community. Bias and pressure from peers is apparent in all sciences, and one has to be strong personally and professionally to avoid it. The biological/zoological community should be focused on clearing their name, so they are not accused of being unscientific. Shame on you! (Editor's note: AMEN to that! - Autumn) Autumn: If a researcher wished to conduct an experiment to determine whether Sasquatch uses infrasound, how would one best go about this? Liz: In order to really study the question of infrasound usage, an array of microphones would be needed. If triangulated, this would give the researcher accurate positions. However, infrasound in the field is very tricky, and it would be very expensive. The best approach would be to purchase a DAT recorder, not MP3 (which compresses a signal) and set it up to record continuously without human intervention. Additionally masking the scent, pheromonal intervention, would be extremely important. Otherwise you are hunting deer with a boom-box. Autumn: What uses might the proper infrasound frequency have in FACILITATING an interaction with these creatures? Liz: In essence you could be "speaking" in terms that they understand or that which is familiar to them. Autumn: Finally, what are the DANGERS in experimenting with infrasound? Liz: Infrasound can cause physical and emotional harm at the right frequencies and amplitudes, and can be used to scare away an animal as well as attract it. A FEW FINAL THOUGHTS ON SASQUATCH AND INFRASOUND Unexplained Terror Forward-thinking Sasquatch researchers first began examining this phenomenon as a means to explain feelings of "dread or terror" in eyewitnesses. Woods-savvy hunters - big men with big guns who have hunted an area for years - will suddenly report feeling overcome with fear and an urge to run... sometimes even before any visual, audio or olfactory sign of a Sasquatch is present. Infrasound, at certain frequencies, is capable of producing a fear response in humans and is thought to magnify existing emotions as well. A Hair-Raising Experience Eyewitnesses commonly specify "feeling the hair stand up on the back of my neck" during an encounter with a Bigfoot. Infrasound is one plausible explanation for this as well. According to Liz Mugenthaler, certain frequencies emitted by tigers cause the hair to stand up on one's neck. A Powerful Hunting Tool? Some animals use infrasound to disable their prey. This was something I had not originally considered when exploring the idea that Sasquatches might use infrasound - but it certainly would be a handy application. The thought that infrasound is capable of producing a "disabling" effect - even to the point of knocking a human unconscious - could also explain those reports in which a witness inexplicably "falls asleep". I have noticed a prevalence of this in reports for years and, in fact, I programmed the database specifically with a field to flag the report for these reports. Disappearing Sasquatches? Liz Mugenthaler told me during our lengthy conversation that the infrasound produced by a tiger can cause VISION disturbances in humans, making the eyes vibrate and causing a loss of visual acuity. I was excited when she told me this... I thought, perhaps, not only might it explain eyewitness claims of "camouflaged" or "disappearing" creatures, but it might explain some of my own firsthand experiences in the field as well. Several times, when there were indications that a Bigfoot was near, I have experienced strangely blurred vision and an inability to focus on the spot where I could clearly hear a bipedal creature in the brush. I made a mental note of this at the time, and always explained it to others as an "inability to focus properly", though I never had an explanation for what might have caused it. Could infrasound explain it? A HUGE thanks to Liz Mugenthaler for her time, pioneering spirit and dedication to the true meaning of science: The exploration of things we don't yet understand, and the attempt to explain the UNEXPLAINED.