Leaderboard

Swaying back to Hiflier's topic (not that the other stuff isn't interesting), how far does Bigfoot travel? First observation – there have been possible encounters in the northeast United States and eastern Canada since at least 1650. However, when broken out by the time frames I use and map (pre-1900, 1900-1959, and then by decades) , the encounters always peter out going into New Hampshire, Maine, and eastern Canada. In other words, no matter how many encounters there are in that area, they are tailing off from the rest of New England and Pennsylvania to the south. Obviously, some of this has to do with the lower number of humans in this area. However, I would also suggest that the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes provide a significant barrier to travel that affects the number of encounters. (NOTE f/those newcomers - in addition to my database, I independently plot each encounter on Google Earth.) Second observation, while agreeing w/Bobby O’s thoughts on the folly of trying to track “individual” Bigfoot based on reported height/hair color/etc., I believe (and I know Bobby does) that value remains in looking at this information. For example, out of 163 Bigfoot encounters reported from New Hampshire north into eastern Canada, nine (9) were described as gray, or with some gray. To me, the temporal distribution of these are interesting. It is: 1930s – 1951 – 1979 – 1987 – 1997 – 2004 – 2006 x2 – 2007 Is this indicative of older and weaker individuals being forced from the better feeding grounds? Last observation for now. While I haven’t started vetting the New Hampshire-Maine-eastern Canada data for patterns, I’ve noted in other threads that, at least in the northeast, there is a pattern of encounters in one area followed by a lull followed by a new group years later in a new, distant area. This is suggestive of checkerboard sustenance farming practice that I understand is used by aboriginal groups in the South American rain-forest and other areas. This would make sense if a family group used up an area, relocated outside of the northeast, and then moved back years later. Not sure if its instinct or planned at a rudimentary level, but I believe two things. First, it makes biological sense. Second, it is arguably not logical that hoaxers fabricating encounters or random miss-identifications of bear, elk, and moose would magically fall outside of a normal random distribution.

Maybe the licking was demonstration that monkeys have yet to discover a technique to determine fracture planes... "hmmm..tastes like about a 45 degree angle from current perpendicular...." Or maybe not..doesn't meant that some time in the future (either near or far) that some monkey might realize those chips and shards could prove useful in different applications other than mere "licking stones" Who's to say our own development of knapping stone didn't arise from some similar behaviour once one of us thought "dang that rock is sharp! I just cut myself on it!.......wait a second!"