Why Do Bigfoots Not Harm Humans More Often?

[LeafTalker]

I think avoiding retaliation is a factor, I think inherent disinclination is another.    Yeah, I think they recognize some "brotherhood of sapient beings" and show us respect even if we're too stupid / barbaric to show them the same.  

This is what I think also. 

 

P.S. 1980squatch, that was funny. 

Edited January 13, 2014 by LeafTalker

[Terry]

Being passive, the legend is allowed to carry on as it probably always will until such time as advanced technology makes it virtually impossible to substantiate claims that monsters are slapping the walls of the trailer home.  If bf was reported killing folks and people were really dying, it wouldn't take long for those claims to be put to rest and the real killers rounded up.

 

t.

[JDL]

I think it is naïve to expect bigfoot to be more neighborly to humans than humans are to humans.

 

It may be that most of the time, when things are hunky dory, there is no need for conflict and there is no conflict.

 

But there are times when they may perceive a need to protect young, or females, or food sources, or territory and things can get dicey.

 

And there may be times when food is genuinely scarce and the stray human is a viable menu item.

 

Hominids have always competed against other hominids, just as different groups of humans compete against each other.

 

And why are bigfoot so big and powerful?  I'll wager that it isn't so they can be cuddlier for our sakes.  Lots of people would love to hug a polar bear and I'm sure there are lots of polar bears that would love for them to try (I'm actually in favor of allowing anyone who wants to, to make the attempt).

 

I'll also wager that bigfoot understand the relationship between humans and bigfoot better than we do.  And if we can attribute intelligence as a factor in their perceived lack of harm toward us, I'll offer that they either understand the downside to preying on humans and choose not to do so, or they choose to cause harm only when they are sure that they won't get caught.

 

And then there is always the bad tempered rogue who may have had a bad experience and nurses a grudge.

 

Bottom line is that they don't prey indiscriminately or everybody would know about them, and there's no reason, other than crunchy wishful thinking, to believe that they are all benign and never harm people.

 

In my opinion, any one of them is capable of violence under the right circumstances and is built to be devastating.

[LeafTalker]

Sorry, changed my mind. Post deleted. 

Edited January 13, 2014 by LeafTalker

[Guest Coonbo]

Most animals, including some of the top predators like the Great White Shark, don't normally or naturally kill humans.  

 

When wild animals attack people there is usually a reason - protecting young, defending a den, etc.  Carniverous type animals dont usually just kill unless they are hungry.

 

Using gorillas as an example, they seem to be pretty low key.  They can be ferocious appearing with roars, chest beating, mock charges and intimidation, but they seem to be pretty retiring and shy creatures overall.  I cant say I have ever heard of a gorilla actually attacking someone. 

 

I personally view bigfoot as being more of an omnivore too than a carnivore or great hunter. But that is just my opinion.  Most predatory animals are anatomically different than a human or great ape.  or, like humans, they use tools and have used tools like spears for tens of thousands of years to hunt, since we are not natural physical hunters.

 

I do not know of any overwelming evidence of bigfoot ever killing anyone at least in any number of incidents outside of the norm for large animals.  Mostly it seems to be more anecdotal, like the story related by Teddy Roosevelt that implied something like a Sasquatch killed a man.

 

Well said Shelly.  I've heard and read several reports of BF killing humans, but they have all been anecdotal, and no irrefutable evidence has ever turned up that I could get ahold of.  The closest I've come to positively verifying any human deaths caused by BF were incidents that happened in the Land Between the Lakes in Kentucky and at an old Indian boarding school in Oklahoma.  The reason that I say these were the closest is that, in each, I talked to at least two different people that were independently and supposedly personally involved or had first-hand information about the incidents.

 

Many of you have heard or seen me relate the story of the hunting guide witnessing his client getting beheaded and dismembered by a BF.  I personally took his report and he took me to the place it supposedly happened, but I never found even the tiniest shred of corroborating evidence.  Although one of my research partners went to his grave believing it, I still classify it as doubtful.

 

 

To be fair David never links bf to the files, with that said what do Indian tales tell us?

Does bf take people? Yes

Does bf eat people? Yes

A whole host of reasons could answer why, including predation, sexual attraction and surrogate motherly instincts. As well as defense of mate, young, territory or even retaliation.

 

You are right norseman.  Indian folklore is full of stories of BF killing/harming people for various reasons.  An older Cherokee that I knew talked about BF like they were a normal part of nature, however they have two different words for BF.  If I remember this correctly, one is the "Nun Yunu Wi" (meaning "the stone man") which is considered to be generally gentle and benevolent, although still highly respected and their territory is not entered lightly, and never unless a worthy gift is left behind.  The other is the "Kecleh-Kudleh" (meaning "hairy savage") which was (is) highly feared and its territory is avoided at all costs.

 

The best evidence for someone being harmed by BF that I personally know of is a gentleman in Ohio who is still alive and kickin' but was deeply and permanently affected by the incident.  I knew the man before the incident and I've known him afterwards and he was definitely affected by it.  What makes this one different is that there is an eyewitness to the event that was willing to talk to several of us.  At one point in time, these were two fairly well known researchers. 

[1980squatch]

I think this could be quite simple. Avoidance or light intimidation is effective and costs little energy. They are probably big because it fits an ecological niche well, not so they can kick ass. Agree that an individual either through temperament or situation could be nasty but in the vast majority you get your gentle giant. Helps keep them unproven.

[SWWASAS]

Where I live in Washington there are 3 people missing in the last year within 50 miles, in spite in intensive searches not a trace has been found. That is not proof of anything other than lots of people disappear. Those are just the ones near where I live. In the case of these disappearances, they are in areas with reported BF sightings. Cougar attacks are very rare but when they do, usually human remains are found. Could it be that sick or old BF turn to human predation when they can no longer chase down a deer, just like old and sick cougars? Or maybe some BF just like how we taste now and then. Special holiday meal? Statistical overlap of BF habitat and missing human locations seems rather interesting but could just be coincidence. Statistically probably more humans disappear in cities than out in the woods. But that is more likely the result of malevolent humans than anything else.

Edited January 13, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest]

Coonbo I am assuming that the Ky incident you are refering to is the family that was supposedly killed at Land Between the Lakes? Wasn't that supposed to be a wolf or dogman that did that? Do you have any info that isn't online that you would be willing to share about that incident or the Ohio incident that you mentioned at the end of your post. You have peaked my interest and I would love to know more if your willing to tell it. Thanks.

[Guest Darrell]

  The closest I've come to positively verifying any human deaths caused by BF were incidents that happened in the Land Between the Lakes in Kentucky and at an old Indian boarding school in Oklahoma.  The reason that I say these were the closest is that, in each, I talked to at least two different people that were independently and supposedly personally involved or had first-hand information about the incidents.

 

Many of you have heard or seen me relate the story of the hunting guide witnessing his client getting beheaded and dismembered by a BF.  I personally took his report and he took me to the place it supposedly happened, but I never found even the tiniest shred of corroborating evidence.  Although one of my research partners went to his grave believing it, I still classify it as doubtful.

 

 

Am i to assue that you, as a researcher and investigato,r recieved the names of the deseased and verified via public records they are actually deseased and the cause of death?  Thats relatively easy to do. Did you do that?

[GuyInIndiana]

The thing with those books is Paulides isn't suggesting anything, he's just giving hard facts and doesn't mention the word Sasquatch once nor put the blame onto any of those deaths or disappearances on anything at all. 

 

 

Then why is the unofficial bigfoot community so quick to do that 'for him' and then conclude something he never said is in fact the reality? This is nearly the singular thing about "bigfooting" that frustrates and disgusts me the most.

[Rockape]

 And while NA stories and legends are fun, IMO, if you choose to beleive the BF stuff you also have to believe all the other stuff we know is superstitious legend.   

Not sure why believing Native American's knew about BF means you have to also think every tale is true. That's the same as many denialists who say believing in BF means you also believe they teleport through dimensions and speak telepathically.

 

Many of the old NA stories about BF actually sound more like the subject is actually a human, albeit feral and a bit crazy. Many of them also seem to be boogieman stories told around a campfire.

 

I think that's because if the NA did indeed know about BF, they were as perplexed about them as we are today and like so many modern day encounters, all they got was a brief glimpse of one and wasn't sure what the heck it was they saw. In other words, if BF does indeed exist, or did so in the past, they are actually very rare and not widespread and numerous as so many reports seem to indicate. Some of the old NA tales might have a grain of truth, but after being retold so many times, much was added to spice up the story.

 

It's the same with stories told by white settlers/trappers/whom ever, it's hard to sift through what might be true and what might not be. It could start out as a scary encounter story and grow to a BF killing the person after being retold so many times.

[salubrious]

if you choose to beleive the BF stuff you also have to believe all the other stuff we know is superstitious legend.   

Not really. You can believe in BF while understanding that superstitious legend is just that- legend.

[Guest LarryP]

 

Many of the old NA stories about BF actually sound more like the subject is actually a human, albeit feral and a bit crazy. Many of them also seem to be boogieman stories told around a campfire.

 

 

That varies greatly according to tribe and geographic location. In the Pacific Northwest they were considered to be a tribe.

[salubrious]

That is the same on the Pine Ridge Reservation too.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

Analyzing the question from a semi-scientific standpoint, I just don't think they have reason to. Most animals kill for one reason only, and that is to feed themselves and their families. We don't go around asking why other animals don't kill humans, so I don't think we should think any differently of sasquatch. Granted however there are animals like big cats and bears who will kill humans, but there is usually an explanation for this.

 

I suppose some of the attacks may occur because the animal is planning on eating the person, but I would guess that they usually happen because of a territorial issue. The animal is protecting its territory. So a good question would be why sasquatch don't kill people who violate their territory? We have reports stating that sasquatch will attempt to drive people away from such locations occasionally, but I can remember only one instance of actual violent attacks, which was the Ape Canyon story.

 

So I guess your question still remains, in one form or another, and I just don't know why they apparently don't kill humans when certain other animals who are capable of such actions might actually go through with it. IF we take the Ape Canyon account as being accurate, then it seems sasquatch are able to understand retaliation, and seem to be capable of it, and this could imply that they might have a sense of right and wrong, as well as a sense of action tailored to the circumstances when dealing with humans and each other.

 

But then again, there is an account of one sasquatch killing another by hitting him over the head with a rock, apparently over food, if I remember correctly. Then there is the possibility that sasquatch vary individually, just like humans. Maybe there are some animals who would be more inclined to attack a human than others. So on the surface your question seems rather simple, but it is actually quite deep and involved once one starts delving into the possibilities and implications, and it is because of these unknowns that I wish we had more accurate data...and just more data in general.