Guest Primate Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 I've certainly seen some trees big enough to support a Sasquatch here in California . But , It took a passage in David Paulides "Tribal bigfoot" to get me to consider the possibility . What do you all see , think , theorise could be the case ? Do Bigfoot live in trees ? Sometimes ? All the time ? Could old growth forest be neccesary for their survival ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 I've read reports of them being seen climbing up, hanging on, or jumping down from trees. One report I've seen even had a huge bf jumping 80ft off a cliff into a tree which I find very hard to believe. I have not read reports about tree nests but ground nests instead. It's possible that old growth forests are not vital for bf to thrive since I have read reports of them being seen in suburban areas out in the open without much forest nearby. Whether any of those reports are true I have no way of knowing but I'm just passing that along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 They spend a LOT of time up in trees, under trees, and beside trees. I think . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 I think BF are a lot like people. The older and heavier you get the less likely you are to climb trees. And most cut over areas don't have trees big enough to support a very big BF. Most of the home videos with climbing BFs are most likely juveniles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 If you can't see them, I am sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmartin Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 I'd be surprised if they didn't use the tree's. Good way to avoid contact with us i would think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 I think BF are a lot like people. The older and heavier you get the less likely you are to climb trees. And most cut over areas don't have trees big enough to support a very big BF. Most of the home videos with climbing BFs are most likely juveniles. I totally agree, and if the older ones do get into a tree it wont go probably more than 10-20 feet off the ground just to say elude a person... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Please pardon the two incomprehensible posts by me, above. Computer trouble interrupted posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Patty's heavily calloused feet support supposition of tree climbing, I think. I am under the impression the metatarsal break facilitates the grasping of trees with the feet? Also, what would all that muscle be for? Or arise from? Humans living in identical environments did not grow massive to cope. The vast upper bodies must be for something, tree climbing makes sense since we haven't found any of thier gyms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) BF and trees just don't make sense when ya look at the reasons to be a tree dweller... First I think the using of the trees as a nursery is plausible to keep the young off the ground and somewhat out of danger... I can't see the look out in the tree scenereo, there are other means more productive and less hazardous... and the third is that the only reason a species uses the trees is for safety of what is on the ground, BF is the top of the food chain and just doesn't need to live in the trees... BF's strength's are mobility, strength, stealth, speed and simply has no real need for trees other then like humans when they put their kids on a swing set... Edited November 28, 2011 by TooRisky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 If you can't see them, I am sorry. Your supposed viewing of the creatures doesn't necessarily impact my not viewing the creatures. I feel you see creatures where others don't, necessarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 To Buzzard Eater, I think the BFs upper body size is needed for knuckle walking (ie 4 x 4) same as the African apes do. If you read "The Historical BF" by Chad Arnet fully 50% of the animals seen in old newspaper accounts walked both on their knuckles -quadripedal -as well as bipedal. Many sightings today also mention that feature. I think many people do not recognize this feature of the BF animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 BFerPhil, that has been my experience in at least half of the sightings I have had. I have only seen one running that wasn't on all fours. It was bent at the waist & appeared that it could have gone to all fours very quickly if it had chosen to. The ones that were bipedal, were either walking or standing. I have seen one run across my back yard incredibly fast, stop & stand up. Another one was standing beside the pond, & kind of twisted & went to all fours & ran off into the woods behind him. One afternoon, I saw a red/orange colored one running on all fours with a horse chasing him. The horse didn't have a chance of catching him. My son saw one running with a pack of coyotes one night. He said it was on all fours & jumped a creek from bank to bank. He said when he first saw it, he thought they had a cow running with them. It's unbelievable how fast they can run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Incor That post was totally messed up, sorry. It sounds bad, but that was not how it was supppposed to read. My bad. Computer quit mid-revisions. Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 If the reported anatomy proves to be true they don't seem to be designed for life in the trees. (long grasping tails for balance, long flexible arms for swinging relatively short lower legs for speed through the trees...) I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the young are more comfortable up there. But the sheer size issues alone make any sort of "life" in the trees unlikely. Not to say they don't hop up there from time to time. We do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts