Jump to content

Why Do Bigfoots Not Harm Humans More Often?


georgerm
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seriously ? You got any links to him stalking about that ?

 

 

The story was covered by Bigfoot's Blog and Cryptomundo, they both had several articles about it. Paulides, MK Davis, Bobbie Short, and a few others all supported the Bigfoot massacre theory and made accusations against John Green and Bob Gimlin. Paulides accused them of "harboring a dark secret".

 

Here's an interview with Green and Gimlin talking about it (about 32 minutes in)-

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/larry-battson/2010/01/22/larry-battsons-wild-world

Edited by roguefooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

I thought it was always the other fella with the southern accent that always talked about that, the guy who plays around with video editing ?

Can't think of his name right now.

Ill look at the link later rf, thanks for sharing.

Edit : MK Davis is it ? Sorry, just saw you gave his name in the post anyway. Not a lot of sleep for me, last night.;)

Edited by BobbyO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigfoot harming people? We don't hear about that much and there aren't many credible stories about it. I think this shows the high level of sophistication and intelligence of these creatures. They don't have to harm us; they may even respect us; they know we are intelligent creatures, too. Lesser intelligent animals like those on four legs are more likely to take a fight or flight response when encountering humans. Most will either scamper away, or they may consider attacking us, as do bears and moose. But I think it takes a higher level of reasoning and logical analysis to respect a fellow creature that walks on two legs. I guess what I am saying is that my uneducated opinion is animals instinctively respect those animals that walk on two legs and recognize them as having higher intelligence. Perhaps bigfoot make a calculation about threats, risks, and even respect whenever they see us? You're not likely to kill another upright creature that you respect and recognize as having high intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MIB.  You're covering old ground.  We've all agreed that humans are more dangerous than bigfoot on the average.  And, for the record, I've been stalked and threatened by both armed humans and bigfoot.  Just because humans pose a bigger risk it doesn't mean bigfoot aren't dangerous, especially to someone who is unaware of them.

 

As benign as some encounters may be, and even though some people may be able to establish benign relationships, the average person, running into the average group of bigfoot for the first time is dealing with an unknown, and so are the bigfoot.

 

And I still maintain that it is crunchy wishful thinking to believe that all bigfoot are harmless and that bigfoot cannot be provoked to violence and are not capable of it.



Keep in mind, as we've discussed at length on the forum before, that they exhibit the behavior of ambush predators.

 

Has anyone ever verified that the Cowman of Copalis Beach story is based on actual encounters? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose this discussion leads into the experience of Fred Beck and the miners around Mt St Helens. If we believe the story, then that tells me that bigfoot will attack only when they feel threatened or when one of their own were attacked. That is the most serious account that I have heard of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose too all of this boils down to what you believe Bigfoot really is. 

 

My own thoughts and suppositions are based on him being an animal.  Some sort of ape.  

 

Obviously if you think he is some sort of human, then you might instill him with human qualities like altruism, a conscience, etc.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its part mathematical law. If BF was 'more' aggressive toward humans in this manner >>>>> that would lead to them being in direct conflict, and tool use would win out. They would be wiped out.  This did happen in Oklahoma with some of the Indian tribes, they were taking too many women and children and the tribe went to 'war' with them. Bad for BF, bad for both! So being <<<<<< more or less, means they survive. Same with any 'hostile' tribe, in the 'old' America. (Nowadays of course, we invite hostile tribes in no matter the cost, probably to our own detriment.) >>>>>><<<<<<<< is bad for both but we would win. Also, BF are generally forest hunters, so they stay in the trees. This is what you want: lllll llll or neutral interaction. BF would obviously prefer NOT to interact at all, just as any animal, bear, dear, squirrels etc.

 

-NW Pacific tribes were generally not aggressive toward each-other because of abundance of food resources, that probably explains why they 'got along' with BF in general.

 

-Southern BF are generally more hostile, aggressive, male humans in the South have higher testosterone levels also.

 

-I've broached this subject before, but I think possibly BF also seem to interact with 'native' peoples a bit worse, more harshly than they do with the modern European types they encounter, but I'm open to discussion.

 

-It also seems that 'Anglos' develop a more 'touchy feely' relationships with them but again, I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Darrel:  In my above post, I hope it is apparent that my sarcasm was NOT directed at you.  Your questions are perfectly legitimate and logical.  When I ask for names, and for other corroborating evidence and some of the answers are evasive or inconclusive, of course that raises a red flag.   Sometimes it's worth passing on as an unproven story if there are other circumstances that lend at least some credibility to the story.  Of course, to a proper investigator all stories are suspect, when you first hear them, unless it's something that you personally witnessed and you know what you know that you know..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose too all of this boils down to what you believe Bigfoot really is. 

 

My own thoughts and suppositions are based on him being an animal.  Some sort of ape.  

 

Obviously if you think he is some sort of human, then you might instill him with human qualities like altruism, a conscience, etc.

Eh, did you just step in a big pile of BF no-no?

 

http://www.theartofbehavior.com/3-animals-that-have-funerals-to-grieve-for-the-dead/

 

chimpanzee-funeral_1510549i.jpg

 

 

I could post on dogs, dolphins, cats, elephants, etc. Grasshoppers? No, Snakes? No.

 

- A better question is what separates humans from other mammals on emotional levels? You would need a PHD and a lifetime to scratch that surface.

Edited by Wag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its part mathematical law. If BF was 'more' aggressive toward humans in this manner >>>>> that would lead to them being in direct conflict, and tool use would win out. Agree here.....They would be wiped out.  This did happen in Oklahoma with some of the Indian tribes, they were taking too many women and children and the tribe went to 'war' with them. Bad for BF, bad for both! So being <<<<<< more or less, means they survive.

 

How do we know this?

 

-Southern BF are generally more hostile, aggressive,

 

What are some examples?

 

 

 

 

 

Hello Wag and interesting replies. You seem to have inside information in regards to Native Americans reacting with bigfoot.

 

Can you document bigfoot attacks or kidnaps?

@Darrel:  In my above post, I hope it is apparent that my sarcasm was NOT directed at you.  Your questions are perfectly legitimate and logical.  When I ask for names, and for other corroborating evidence and some of the answers are evasive or inconclusive, of course that raises a red flag.   Sometimes it's worth passing on as an unproven story if there are other circumstances that lend at least some credibility to the story.  Of course, to a proper investigator all stories are suspect, when you first hear them, unless it's something that you personally witnessed and you know what you know that you know..

 

Well Coonbo, we seem to be at a loss for documented bigfoot attacks. The attacks are either very rare or carried out without leaving evidence. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can also find a pacnw loggers account credible while I find grannies backyard story from New Jersey ludicrous.

 

 

Hey Hey.  I have reason to believe a BF caught and slowly dismembered and ate a deer between me and my neighbor's back yard in NJ.  Don't diss the garden state.  They have BF's too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Wag and interesting replies. You seem to have inside information in regards to Native Americans reacting with bigfoot.

 

Can you document bigfoot attacks or kidnaps?

 

Well Coonbo, we seem to be at a loss for documented bigfoot attacks. The attacks are either very rare or carried out without leaving evidence. What do you think?

http://www.exploresouthernhistory.com/okefenokeebigfoot.html

 

 

..Immediately fearful that the dying monster's 

cries might attract others of ts kind, the 

hunters fled the swamp. The men who died 

in the battle with the creature were left lying 

where they had fallen.

It is a remarkable story, but could it be true? 

The honest answer is that no one knows. 

The newspaper correspondent who reported 

it wrote that people living in Ware County on 

the margins of the Okefenokee Swamp 

clearly believed it.

Either way, the story of the 1829 attack was 

one of the earliest written accounts of the 

creature we know today as Bigfoot or 

Sasquatch. Sightings of some kind of a large 

creature in the swamp and discoveries of 

large footprints continue to be reported from 

the area to this day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Georgerm

No 'inside ' info, I've only heard about this a bit, some on Coast AM, but maybe one of Pauladis books goes into more of BF and American Indians  in depth? Some of it is just anthropology. Southern BF are 'more aggressive' is sort of a known factor, Boggy Creek, etc just from reading BF stuff. Indians in Az or NM seem also to have a 'hard' time with the local BF, they want them SHOT, too much sheep stealing etc. One NA allegedly killed by a BF,  a bit of a cover up of course -Brenda Harris on blogtalk radio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply Wag.

 

Bigfoots are capable of taking out humans but why don't they more often? 

 

 

 

But the creature had never attacked humans that we know of until Saturday August 1 2009. Other people in the campground said the two boys had been fishing in one of the lakes in the campground earlier in the day and told of throwing rocks at a large hairy Swamp Ape creature. The people in the campground said at the time they thought the boys were making up stories but then at 10 PM the creature came into the campground and attacked and supposedly murdered the two boys. They went on to say that the creature threw a teen age boy over each shoulder and ran off back into the swamp with them.........................read more  http://crazyhorsesghost.hubpages.com/hub/Big-Foot-Attacks

 

 

He said an older man maybe in his mid 60s walked in and saw the shirt and ask the young man what he knew about Bigfoot. The young man told him that he didn't know much, but his Uncle by marriage (ME) was a Bigfoot Investigator/Researcher. He said the old man without hesitation said let me tell you about them **** things, about 7 years ago in Ohio my son and I were bow-hunting for Deer. My son shot a button buck, and we both went to retrieve it. When we got near the Deer we saw a huge upright walking creature come out of the woods and picked up the Deer and began to try and eat on it, or chew on it where the blood was coming out of the hole the arrow.......................

 

http://z15.invisionfree.com/OWFR/ar/t300.htm

Edited by georgerm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...