Jump to content

Why Do Bigfoots Not Harm Humans More Often?


georgerm
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor

Hello BC Witness,

Thanks. The legend speaks of two groups of Saskahaua "men" who's activities apparently succeed in keeping each others numbers down. It is/was thought they lived in the mountains. As a result of the battles reducing each of the combatants populations the NC's felt more at ease in the wild. Interesting tale.

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

In all of the reports that I have read, I would say Bigfoot is more of a curious nature as opposed being portrayed as a violent creature. Way more reports point to curiosity..

Thing with that WV is that if they were violent, you wouldn't be reading the sighting report..;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin

BobbyO, LOL... You are sooo right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all of the reports that I have read, I would say Bigfoot is more of a curious nature as opposed being portrayed as a violent creature. Way more reports point to curiosity. Like the man and son who went hunting and forgot the tent poles at home, so the weather permitted sleeping under the stars. The father was awakened by a Squatch touching the man's beard.

I would venture to believe that a Squatch would associate a tent or camp with humans, and so many reports of tents being touched or stroked by an apparent hand. I think if Bigfoot had a mean streak, it would just rip through the tent and get to the goodies inside.

 

My brother-in-law was camping in theTrinity Alps in northern CA, and his toe was squeezed while he was sleeping. He has no idea of BF, and thought an Elk did it while I chuckled to myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Do most BFs never harm people and if so why?

 

 

Maybe bigfoot are like most ethical hunters and only kill what they eat. Has anyone considered that maybe modern humans just taste terrible? I can't remember which book it was that had a few chapters on canabilism, but the natives they interviewed said that the taste of white men wasn't very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the bottom line.

Bottom line is as it stands, this animal doesn't even exist so questioning it's diet etc is, like it or not, is barely even up for debate as the comeback argument for the naysayers against these types of OP questions are so easy, as seen above.

It's why really there's little to no point to even contributing to a large number of threads on the forum any more as what is said and debated in the name of possibility and possibility only, is just dismissed so easily, like it can be as seen above.

 

It's not a dismissal, it's the basic starting point for a real discussion. To suggest that Bigfoot is out killing people there needs to be some plausibility behind it, and it takes more than just a suggestion for something to be plausible.

 

It has nothing to do with the 'existence of Bigfoot', at least not for me, since being a member here means a person suspends disbelief by at least that much. But that's as far as I'm willing to go without evidence.

 

Some people like to discuss possibilities no matter how ungrounded in reality the ideas can become, others like to discuss things within the bounds of reality. To say there is little point to contribution is only viewing things from one POV.

Edited by roguefooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor

Hello roguefooter,

Couldn't agree more. This Forum in a way is a preparatory exercise. But that's not all. It is also a clearing house for how to stay focused on plausible realities. No one person is able to think things through from all angles with this subject especially. And since proof is still as elusive as the purported creature itself is then suppositions will be the rule.

The closer things stay to what we DO know the better it can be. There is science. There are those that came before us and did the witness interviews, and the field work, and cast the footprints and all the mundane, and yes, sometimes the fruitless and frustratingly tedious moments gathering the evidence and the historical data too. The databases, the websites, the Forums, the research work, and putting together the framework that we all benefit from when discussing this phenomenon. In all honesty I would even begin to know how to show my appreciation to the effort except to support the securing of proof in some way shape or form.

So, thanks everyone for being here.

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bigfoot wars?

 

It's one of those stories that changes every time it gets passed around. One source says it took place in Oklahoma in 1855 and involves fighting large white men which some believe were descendants of the Vikings. Another version has them fighting large hairy creatures which of course were later labeled as Bigfoot. A recent TV show claimed it happened in the Sierra mountains of California and happened in prehistoric times. The stories also involve eating human children.

 

To me it has all the telltale signs of an urban legend.

Edited by roguefooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 To give my best guess on the question, it is just a bad policy to kill a member of a pack hunting species when the apparent goals are avoidance and or stealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

It's not a dismissal, it's the basic starting point for a real discussion. To suggest that Bigfoot is out killing people there needs to be some plausibility behind it, and it takes more than just a suggestion for something to be plausible.

 .

Of course it isn't.

To suggest Woodpeckers are as much a possibility of killing people in the forest, if not more, is of course absurd and so absurd that is basically dismissal of Sasquatch on the whole.

But.........Of course, it can be done because at least a woodpeckers "exists"..

More to the point, are there any instances of them hurting people at all?

No and there never will be until they are classified as a living breathing species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were to walk up to someone in the woods, particularly the deep forest, would you know whether that person is armed? Nor would BF.

 

Sasquatch has witnessed hundreds of years of human weaponry and the utter destruction that is foisted upon those who threaten, much less kill, a human. No doubt in my mind that sasquatch has also seen hundreds of years of humans who poured into the woods looking for someone lost or missing.

 

Why would any thinking creature of the woods, who has observed the savagery that awaits anyone who kills a human, invite such a fate? They know bluffing and other benign measures work like a charm.

 

Why unleash a nuclear bomb, and all the collateral damage that will ensue, when a fly swatter works quite nicely, thank you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plenty of people go missing and are never found.  Plenty of those simply disappear without any clue with regard to how.  The vast majority of these were alone at the time of their disappearance.  Doesn't mean any of those were killed by squatch.  But we can't say none of them were killed by squatch.

 

Stipulate that squatch are smart enough to understand that killing or snatching a human in front of other humans will result in immediate reprisal, and killing or snatching a human in an area frequented by humans will result in searches by large groups of humans, driving the squatch and its group away from a preferred area.

 

Result:  You have what, by many accounts, is an ambush predator that is smart enough to pick and choose when the time and place of a kill are low risk.  When the risk to them is high we see them and survive to tell about it.  When the risk to them is low, who knows?

 

People like to talk about how curious they are.  Always at the edge of the woods checking us out.  Always so "fascinated" by us.  How much they like to watch our children in particular.  How sweet and benign that they enjoy watching over our kids.  Bull!  All of this is behavior consistent with that of an ambush predator.  They are the ultimate lurkers! Our lore, that of Native Americans, and their own behavior classify them as a Threat

 

If a human acted like they act, we'd be creeped out in a heartbeat. 

 

Now, it may be that some have had touchy feely encounters with squatch.  I don't doubt it.  Plenty of deer have touchy feely encounters with humans too.  Plenty of deer are also killed and eaten by humans.  And more of us would hunt and kill deer if we couldn't shop for our meat. 

 

A touchy feely investigation of a guy's beard by one squatch doesn't mean that the next touchy feely doesn't involve the guy's liver.

 

There's a difference between a squatch that's not worried about where its next meal is coming from, and a squatch that is "HUNGRY" and is not worried about being caught.

 

So, few reports of squatch killing people, or trying to kill people, and maybe all of those are unreliable.

 

But plenty of reports of squatch threatening people.  Plenty of reports of people who felt that they were in imminent danger.  I've experienced this personally.

 

I'll submit that any being capable of threatening or menacing a human is capable of following through on the behavior when it feels it needs to, or feels that it can, and wants to.

 

So the question is not really "Why Do Bigfoots Not Harm Humans More Often?".  The question is "Why Do We Not Have More Reports Of Bigfoot Harming Humans?".

 

The answer is most likely this:  When they do choose to harm humans, they are smart enough to manage their risk.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

People like to talk about how curious they are.  Always at the edge of the woods checking us out.  Always so "fascinated" by us.  How much they like to watch our children in particular.  How sweet and benign that they enjoy watching over our kids.  Bull!  All of this is behavior consistent with that of an ambush predator.  They are the ultimate lurkers! Our lore, that of Native Americans, and their own behavior classify them as a Threat

 

 

Really well put JDL. In the book Tribal Bigfoot, by Paulides, a report descrbes a road worker kidnapped by a BF. He finally escaped and told of being held in a pit and the BF purposely injured his feet to prevent escape. That's weird.

 

There must be reports out there about BF taking out a human. Has anyone come across such a report?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More to the point, are there any instances of them hurting people at all?

I was hurt by a bigfoot.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

 

...just trying to point out a potential impediment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...