Leaderboard

Perhaps the question of whether BF cares for it's dead is best answered by looking at other primates. Chimpanzees carry around dead infants sometimes for weeks, often to the point where the remains are mummified. A dying adult will be stroked and groomed until the point of death and then left alone other than some attempts to wake them up. Upon death the tribe physically moves away from the immediate presence of the dead member. The whole process is calm and without commotion unless the death was violent, because the victim fell or was killed, then the tribe is agitated for quite a period of time. Gorillas also will carry a dead infant around for a period of time. I suspect the difference between BF and most other animals is that they have arms and hands, like the other primates, and do stuff that is abnormal for other animals without arms and hands. Elephants have been mentioned and they can use their truck as if they are hands and care for and tend and move the bones of their dead. Logic would suggest that intelligent animals with the means to move their dead do so in some manner, each in their own way. Why would we assume that BF is any different? We just do not know what they do.

"Humans are not always the only species to bury their dead. Chimpanzees and elephants are known to throw leaves and branches over fallen members of their family groups. In a particularly odd case, an elephant which trampled a human mother and child buried its victims under a pile of leaves before disappearing into the bushes.[20] In 2013, a viral video caught a dog burying a dead puppy by pushing sand with its own nose.[21] It is presumed, however, that since dogs retain the instinct to bury food, this is what is being depicted in the video." Wiki So if more intelligent species have been known to have some sort of burial ritual or behavior, I find it barely any leap to credit Sasquatch with the same. That could be part of the problem, locating these burial sites. If it is simply a very primitive grave with tree branches or literally dug in the ground, or maybe a cave or other cavity might serve the purpose. You cannot limit your thinking in terms of traditional burial. The point is that they might hide the body, just as the elephant attempted to above, it seemed aware of the issue of someone finding those bodies, so how is it any stretch for a creature that is instinctually avoidant, and probably more intelligent than any other mammal maybe excepting homo sapiens, how is it any reach for them to have a burial ritual of some sort, and perhaps even more elaborate than just sticks or branches. Whether or not you accept the existence of such a creature, you have to consider what it would entail for such a creature to exist, even if you think it does not. You would have to credit it with superior abilities to adapt and survive, and I believe that is the case here, and part of that case is to not leave your dead. Or for that matter to find them if they are missing, and recover them. It is really very little stretch to credit a creature of this intelligence, if it indeed does exist, with such behavior. The two would go hand in hand in my opinion. IF IT EXISTS=MUST BE HIGHLY INTELLIGENT=KNOWS THE IMPORTANCE OF REMAINING UNDETECTED

Besides that, in the accounts I've read there seems to be considerable variation in reported head size and shape, with some stating what they saw had a small round head, others claim a small yet conical head form, while others still say what they saw had an enormous round head, then there are those seeing creatures with large conical or crested head shape. Sure, to some degree it's a matter of individual interpretation on the part of the witnesses, but there does appear to be a diversity of head form found in these creatures. Whether or not this denotes multiple species in question, is perhaps a question for a different thread, but with such a wide span of reported cranial configurations, it seems a bit premature to ascribe presumed levels of cognition based on a single format of unknown size, volume, or content. One must bear in mind that in light of our species' inability to effectively communicate with most every other species, we have no means by which to assess the capacity for abstraction in the other creatures of our world, nor the paths used to attain or implement it.

Cryptic, you want everyone to approach the skull type and size scientifically. Yet you yourself do not do so. If you're going to compare the early hominids, take your pick which one, they were small compared to us. Regardless what shape you think Patty's skull is considering her stature and body build, her head is probably bigger than ours. You want to make those comparisons, then scale them to the correct size. The problem is, it would still only be a rough estimate at best. As others above have commented, unless you have an actual sasquatch skull to work with, you are just guessing.

"Yeah....I got it off one of the pinks.....it's pretty good stuff....... I call it 'screaming dwarf' ....yknow? He he he he..." "Yeah...funny...he he he he...you get their cooler, too?" "No, but they had this box of ding dongs in their tent....here" "Duudphsh! Theeesh rrrrgh ghrrheath!"

John Green database: 55 reports of more than two, sexes unknown, and 16 reports claiming groups of large and small creatures together. And there are those here who have reported more than one. There's no way to determine how many (if any) others may have been hiding close by. I can see the statement that they may not be socially complex but they certainly do seem to have some close social contact in some form. At least what could be considered social from a low population.

Hello, everyone. You may not have intended to, but it seems like you're asking me two separate questions. So, I'll address both as I hear them... As far as the witnesses we interview on the show or that show up to town hall, I suspect that about a third to a half of them have perhaps posted their accounts to some organization or individual. Averaging that out is a pretty hard guess, though. You see, at every town hall meeting we invite some witnesses that we or someone we know have dealt with in the past (most are mined from the BFRO database, but they also come from my own database, and some from local bigfooters friends). This way, we are sure to have at least some good witnesses on hand so we can film the show. In addition to that, depending on the format of the town hall, the venue size, the story line of the episode, and other factors, we put the word out publicly in newspapers and other local media inviting witnesses to come to the meeting to share their accounts. Those meetings are fun for me because we never know what we are in for. Maybe nobody will show up, or maybe we'll get 100 attendees, many of whom are actual witnesses (we've had over 45 at one meeting). More often than not, especially as the show's popularity grew, we would get a lot of stories that nobody had ever told beyond their close family (and sometimes not even to them). An easier question for me to ponder would be "What percentage of people who see a bigfoot go through the trouble of reporting it to a group or researcher?" For that question, I would speculate something close to 1 reported sighting for 100 actual sightings. This comes from not only working on Finding Bigfoot, but also from just living in Portland, OR. A quick check of the BFRO database tonight gave 7 published reports for Multnomah County (where I live), and 27 from Clackamas County (right next door, and where I do most of my bigfooting). That's 34 total. Over the last 9 or 10 years I've lived there, I've easily spoken to over 150 people in town who have shared their bigfoot stories with me, but have never reported it to a bigfoot nerd. Sure, many of them saw the bigfoots in WA, CA, CO, or elsewhere, but this gives us some feeling of how much people share with organizations or groups. It's safe to say that there are plenty of other people in the area who I have not run across that have seen or encountered bigfoots. I think 1 out of 100 is a safe guess... (But just a guess!) Hope this more or less answers your question! Thank you all for your positive words here online, and your smiles when I meet you face to face (as sometimes happens)! Cliff

Where did I contradict myself? I said that they have access to my backyard, not that they forage it or steal tools from it. The garden is not in the back yard, if that's what you mean. I said they could get tools if they wanted them, not that they DO want them. Uneducated assumptions are why there are so many misunderstandings about BFs. People get ideas in their minds with nothing more to base them on than speculation & the next thing you know, they're preaching it for the truth. I say they have access to my backyard, & could get a tool from somebody's tool shed & you apparently get a mental picture of them roaring & lurching around in broad daylight, jerking the door off a tool shed, banging tools together & not noticing a home owner sneaking up on them with a shotgun. IF they wanted a tool, or "whatever", they wouldn't just come stumbling in reaching for it without regard to homeowners, dogs, or shotguns!!! You're thinking "bear" & I'm thinking "Ninja". This is only if they wanted to steal something. They have people that they have watched constantly for years, & know the people as well as they know themselves. They watch how the people treat each other, animals & their neighbors. They watch how they care for the land & their livestock (if they have any), & know their behavior down to the tiniest detail. They make friends with the dogs. A dog may go missing or turn up dead if he can't be befriended. There is no aspect of these people's lives that they aren't completely familiar with. They know their habits & it even seems that they know their very thoughts. So, if BF wanted a tool & one of their "habituated humans" had the tool, they'd wait until everybody was asleep, or no one was home, (Yes.They would know without a doubt). Then one would come out of hiding, pat the dog on the head, check with all the others that are around & watching, by whistling, gently knocking on something, or some other prearranged signal, then take what they wanted. In most cases the people know they are constantly there, & would give them anything they wanted if they knew. Many do know. In some cases, they are so accustomed to the routines of their people that they don't even bother to be too careful after dark. They come by, toss a rock on the roof, peck on the wall, peep in a window until you see eyes watching you, rattle something on the porch, or send a smell into the house. Later on, they get the humans so finely tuned in to them that they know when the BFs are there without being notified. This is the kind of BF that I know about. Maybe there are others that are different, & aren't as clever & stealthy. They must be the ones that are getting themselves shot.