Leaderboard

Here's a novel thought - maybe they do actually know what cameras are. After all, in the age of digital, we point and shoot, then we look on the screen at the picture we just took. How hard is it to figure that out? I sometimes think the notion that "how could they possibly know what a camera is, it must just look like a gun" is just another item on a tiresome list of underestimations of their abilities and intelligence.

Well, this is dated, as I first wrote this back in 2014, but ... Old Slippery Skin's territory, circa 1810, covered approximately 900 square miles. The Litchfield Monster's territory (possibly a hoax), circa 1895, covered approximately 145 square miles and locals reported that the main creature was part of a family of three. If you go to the Northeast sightings, Vermont thread, my tract "Bigfoot in the Northeast" includes maps, breakdowns of territories, and an accounting of physically distinctive Bigfoots in many parts of eastern New York. For example, the vast majority of encounters in east-central New York occur on the roughly 900 square mile plateau/saddle that links the Taconic and Green Mountains - a saddle that happens to include Castleton, NY and Rutland, VT. Unfortunately, while I've been out in the woods hiking/exploring more since then, I've had no more luck encountering anything - even bear. I'm not sure I'd encounter a cow at a dairy farm the way things go.

They may understand the concept of a trap. A trail cam, if noticed, would qualify as a type of trap. They may not know what it does, just that it is something to avoid.

Two wild guesses: 1) Facial recognition is important to them. One's face may be the number one indicator of intent and when hiding one's face behind a camera it is nearly impossible to read intent in one's expression. Animals, no matter what kind, read facial expression for survival around a predator or when competing for food or for reading dominance and threats during mating. It's seems to be all about understanding intent. 2) The obvious experience of aimed weapons use by Humans who hunt.

Occam's razor is the idea that the simplest explanation of a phenomena is usually the correct one. The simplest explanation Is that Bigfoot is flesh and blood and an animal. No telepathy, interdimensional UFO traveling aliens, Etc.

It's a matter of what each one of us want the end-game to be, I think. Some want the mystery to last forever, they are enamored with it, It's like the never ending story. Some want to remain the privileged few who have seen or interacted with a BF, and selfishly hold on to that position for fame, glory or bragging rights, regardless of the cost to the population as a whole in the long term. The fact is that their habitat is getting smaller every day, the longer the species is unrecognized, the greater it's risk of extinction (if it hasn't occurred already). Some are in between. Some of us want the species to be accepted by science so they can be protected legally under the full weight of the law; unfortunately, that requires a type specimen. Many species have been saved once they are recognized as endangered under the law. It's for the good of the species, one subject to protect a whole population under the law forever. Think about it. I submit to you that my position is morally superior to the alternatives. It is the right thing to do.

I guess letting them think they can come and raid your camp without a nasty reaction could be a good thing if played correctly. Let them come again and again, maybe leave a few goodies... Then when the time is right, wham! a type specimen... its worth a try.

I would never bring a sasquatch in with a bullet hole in it. I don't believe in the Kill Club approach. Nor would I ever share a picture or video or other evidence I had as I would prefer sasquatches remain undiscovered. If I were a betting man, and I'm not, I would bet that we will eventually learn that a sasquatch has it's own unique hair and their DNA is entirely, or almost entirely, human.