salubrious Posted January 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 21, 2014 The Native Americans all agree on one thing with regards to BF: Treat Big Brother with respect. If they wanted into that house it would have been no worries. I look at them as a trickster- they will mess with you if they can, for no other reason then perhaps because they can and its fun. Sounds like other than some events that humans have interpreted as intimidating, no-one was actually hurt or even threatened in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Look up the Human - Bigfoot War of 1855. Also check out the Cowman of Copalis Beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 My bad. Didn't realize that the Human Bigfoot War reference led to a particular blog. Not my intent to direct you there. Instead look up the Legend of Sacred Baby Mountain. We dug into this a while back and found that Captain LeFlore did exist and did die about the time of this account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I just dont get how if this happened nobody shot one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I think we need to remind our selves that humans are also capable of nasty animalistic behaviors and actions, if the sasquatch is human { or near human } it should not surprise us to see them take on wild creature like behaviors. They grow up in a harsh environment that teaches do or die, if they observe other wildlife using such behaviors successfully to obtain food and defend themselves what would stop them using these same tactics ? Friend or foe, the idea that they are your friends is really more of a romantic idea. No matter how much trust you earn or how friendly you are it does not change that they are wild and simply unpredictable. That being said, I personally go out solo most of the time to attempt to earn trust and get closer, I am fully aware that it is dangerous but it a risk I am willing to take. Risk nothing = gain nothing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 There was a thread a while back titled "Violent Bigfoot". Worth the read for the new folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I just dont get how if this happened nobody shot one One was, the others carried its body away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coonbo Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Just going back to the subject line, I would say both and neither are equally right. They are individuals. Individuals vary. Circumstances vary. Trying to paint them all with the same brush is naive and may prove dangerous. In that sense they are no different than us. We produced Mother Teresa and Gandi. We also produced Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, and Hitler. Saying that all humans are peaceful and trustworthy is clearly wrong. Saying all are deceptive murderers is wrong. It is the same for sasquatch. There are no guarantees who you're going to run into out there, nor whether they're having a bad day. I think taking your chances on sasquatch are better than taking your chances on us ... but it is still "chance." MIB Exactly. I've personally met one of the family members in this incident. And having heard the story straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, plus heard the family's version of the report of the conduct of the BFRO team and what the family says really happened, there were huge differences in the expectations of the family and the BFRO from the beginning. It sort of boiled down to the family accusing the BFRO of being a bunch of cowardly, panty-waist, tree-hugger city boys that didn't know their butts from a hole in the ground and the BFRO treating the family like a bunch of crazed, wild-eyed, bloodthirsty hillbillies. I don't believe that the BFRO fully appreciated the seriousness of the situation after the initial shots had been fired, nor did their "team" contain the proper types of people to relate to the family plus operate effectively In the hostile environment of that location. One BF was hit by rifle fire. There was a lot of blood around, and as previously noted, it was carried away by other ones. Whether dead, mortally wounded, or just a survivable wound, we don't know. I also firmly believe that had the family been armed with more lethal weaponry, there WOULD have been at least one and probably multiple specimens collected. Now, whether or not they would have been able to retain possession of those specimens and prove the existence of BF is a subject of great speculation. My condensed take on the incident is based on the fact that I'm convinced that BF are opportunists. They had the opportunity to feed on the entrails of the deer killed by the family around their home, and in the process became used to gunfire and it was like a dinner bell to them. As more BF learned to hang around the area after hearing gunfire, there weren't enough entrails and other parts to satisfy all of them, so they followed the scents of the deer that were killed, and found where the carcasses were hanging, or they observed the family hanging the carcasses. Being opportunists, the BF broke into the shed to steal parts of the carcasses, a behavior that has been reported many times. A family member caught the culprit red-handed and shot it, wounding it, and things go downhill quickly from there. The BF supposedly "retaliate" and thereby the "siege" begins, so to speak. When the family starts shooting at the BF, because the BF have been desensitized to gunfire, it takes a while for them to realize what's happening, before the BF decide to escalate things. However, if the BF were really wanting to break into the family's home and extract some revenge, I believe they could have done it. But I also believe that had a family member ventured out into the brush by himself, there's a good chance the boogers would have gotten him. Also, even NA's will tell you that there are definitely different personalities among the BF. The Cherokees and Choctaws have two words for them, one for the "normal" types, and one for the dangerous, belligerent type. But both are highly respected, the latter also being feared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Also, even NA's will tell you that there are definitely different personalities among the BF. The Cherokees and Choctaws have two words for them, one for the "normal" types, and one for the dangerous, belligerent type. But both are highly respected, the latter also being feared. Thanks, I was hoping you would give your input, Coonbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Love the first paragraph, Coonbo. Confirms the between-the-lines impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Hello Coonbo, "Now, whether or not they would have been able to retain possession of those specimens and prove the existence of BF is a subject of great speculation" May I use this quote in another thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djj Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Is there a difference between red eyed and yellow eyed ssq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coonbo Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 hiflier: Sure. What thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) Hello Coonbo, The "So You've Found Sasquatch Remains...now What?" thread. Hello Djj, I don't know. I've read that for some animals with eyeshine it depends on what the angle of the reflected light is. I can create a list from John Green's Database for you if you'd like to research this for yourself. Edited January 22, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coonbo Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) Is there a difference between red eyed and yellow eyed ssq? My experience has been that usually when they're looking right at you, and you're shining a light at them, their eyes glow red or pinkish. However, when turning their eyes and head away from you, they fade to orange-ish and then to yellow. Now, if you've seen what you are sure was a BF and you could see BOTH eyes and they were reflecting yellow while it was looking right at you, I'd like to know where that was. We've noticed that the eyes of the ones we've shined in an area noted for the long-snouted/werewolf type of boogers will usually reflect white or yellowish, even though looking at them through a NV scope or binoculars they appear to be "normal" BF, although the range was fairly long for the NV equipment we had at the time. I don't know if this is a regional difference in the BF due to ????? or if was a coincidence caused by ?????? But this has happened on more than one outing into that area over a period of over 15 years. Edited January 22, 2014 by Coonbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts