Bigfoot Beheads People?

[georgerm]

You still didn't answer or even try to answer my question. You're still just stating what you believe but no facts other than what you believe to be true... BFRO doesn't ever post the mean or bad encounters. That's fact... I don't put much into their reports anyways except for very few. I'm good at gleaming out certain things in reports. It's not hard sometimes to tell if someone is full of it. Since Matt's show started their reports have doubled.. Mostly because someone has never seen or heard anything but they just want to make up a story for whatever reason because they saw the tv show..

 

I've been doing this since our first encounter in 88. The first two encounters they were mean and pretty sure was trying to hurt us... I stay out of that place now days. Our current area just a few miles from my house we know for sure there are at least two there.. I certainly don't think all Bigfoot are mean by any stretch.. Mostly likely the rogue males or females are the bad ones. A family unit most likely will not unless you come to near to them and their children and depending on how hungry they are for some tasty human organs..

 

 

 

You'll figure it out eventually, I'm sure. 

 

Good luck!

 

Bigfoots can vary greatly from the various regions of the country physically and probably in temperament.  According to the many reports that I've read in several books and many sites on the web for over ten years now bigfoot behavior varies. My Oregon sighting is published here. No one person has bigfoot figured out, and it's been reported that there may be a few subspecies of bigfoot. The ones reported in the book, The Hoopa Project by Paulides shows more human looking bigfoots. The local Hoopa Native Americans reported them as being mountain devils. There are other areas where bigfoot is reported to be more like Patty or nonhuman looking. Many have reported bigfoots as shy and nonaggressive and in some cases friendly. Some have reported habituation  success. Bigfoot is so illusive it's hard to get a grip on them.

 

We do need to depend on reports from BFRO, and they have a good vetting process before publishing reports. I've read quite a few reports of very aggressive bigfoots and many of the passive kinds.

 

My theory is when bigfoot acts aggressive, it has a den with a family close by. many times. If you wander into the 'hot zone' they will threaten you or may make one disappear. The hot zone may be two miles from their den, and if you ignore warnings and keep going in this direction you may 'disappear',  Bigfoots are probably smart enough to make you disappear without leaving a trace. If you are many miles away from their family den, they stare at you and walk off. They are not stupid and know humans can hurt them, so they walk off if the human poses no threat to the den.

 

Bigfoots might judge the character of people that wander into their claimed territory. If someone looks dangerous and threatening they probably act aggressive and snap trees. We don't know. Maybe the bigfoots in one state area meaner and one does need to be armed and careful.

 

Triton can you describe your encounters in more detail and publish them on BFF?

 

Let's keep egos out of the way if possible and work together to solve the bigfoot puzzle. Anyone that seeks them out and find evidence has lots to add to our knowledge bank.

Edited February 20, 2016 by georgerm

[TritonTr196]

 

You still didn't answer or even try to answer my question. You're still just stating what you believe but no facts other than what you believe to be true... BFRO doesn't ever post the mean or bad encounters. That's fact... I don't put much into their reports anyways except for very few. I'm good at gleaming out certain things in reports. It's not hard sometimes to tell if someone is full of it. Since Matt's show started their reports have doubled.. Mostly because someone has never seen or heard anything but they just want to make up a story for whatever reason because they saw the tv show..

 

I've been doing this since our first encounter in 88. The first two encounters they were mean and pretty sure was trying to hurt us... I stay out of that place now days. Our current area just a few miles from my house we know for sure there are at least two there.. I certainly don't think all Bigfoot are mean by any stretch.. Mostly likely the rogue males or females are the bad ones. A family unit most likely will not unless you come to near to them and their children and depending on how hungry they are for some tasty human organs..

 

 

 

You'll figure it out eventually, I'm sure. 

 

Good luck!

 

Bigfoots can vary greatly from the various regions of the country physically and probably in temperament.  According to the many reports that I've read in several books and many sites on the web for over ten years now bigfoot behavior varies. My Oregon sighting is published here. No one person has bigfoot figured out, and it's been reported that there may be a few subspecies of bigfoot. The ones reported in the book, The Hoopa Project by Paulides shows more human looking bigfoots. The local Hoopa Native Americans reported them as being mountain devils. There are other areas where bigfoot is reported to be more like Patty or nonhuman looking. Many have reported bigfoots as shy and nonaggressive and in some cases friendly. Some have reported habituation  success. Bigfoot is so illusive it's hard to get a grip on them.

 

We do need to depend on reports from BFRO, and they have a good vetting process before publishing reports. I've read quite a few reports of very aggressive bigfoots and many of the passive kinds.

 

My theory is when bigfoot acts aggressive, it has a den with a family close by. many times. If you wander into the 'hot zone' they will threaten you or may make one disappear. The hot zone may be two miles from their den, and if you ignore warnings and keep going in this direction you may 'disappear',  Bigfoots are probably smart enough to make you disappear without leaving a trace. If you are many miles away from their family den, they stare at you and walk off. They are not stupid and know humans can hurt them, so they walk off if the human poses no threat to the den.

 

Bigfoots might judge the character of people that wander into their claimed territory. If someone looks dangerous and threatening they probably act aggressive and snap trees. We don't know. Maybe the bigfoots in one state area meaner and one does need to be armed and careful.

 

Triton can you describe your encounters in more detail and publish them on BFF?

 

Let's keep egos out of the way if possible and work together to solve the bigfoot puzzle. Anyone that seeks them out and find evidence has lots to add to our knowledge bank.

 

Hello Geo, like I said, I don't believe they are all mean at all and my ego doesn't even come into play in the Bigfoot research world... But I look at both sides of the stories. And yes, I plan on posting some stuff soon as my post restrictions are lifted. Our first encounters years ago there wasn't any digital cameras and we were like a lot of people back then thinking Bigfoot only lived out in the PNW.. Took me up till the mid 90's to even draw a connection that it was a Bigfoot messing with us all those times. Even though I read the newest reports from the BFRO I still don't and will never put much into their reports. I personally know they are screened out depending if it goes against their grain.

[Gotta Know]

Interesting insights about BFRO reporting, Triton. Coupled w their show's sort of "rosey" outlook of all things BF, it's as if they choose to play the role of PR hacks making sure BF has a good image at all cost. While that may help to pull people in and be better for BF awareness in the long run, if it's a (sometimes) false perception it could put people in danger.

I have also seen enough hair raising accounts of hunters harassed in deer stands and even a sighting of one BF having killed another to make me keep my guard up. I look forward to your reports.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Gotta Know

[LeafTalker]

I wish people would learn to read. 

 

Here is Cliff Barackman -- a prominent member of the BFRO -- on the subject of the true nature of Sasquatches. You can find the original post here: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/51557-finding-bigfoot-crew-pushes-the-gentle-giant-agenda-a-bit-much/page-2#entry923164. Emphasis below supplied by me. 

 

From Cliff: 

 

-----------------------------

 

Hello, everyone.

 

It was this thread [Finding Bigfoot Crew Pushes the Gentle Giant Agenda a Bit Much] that motivated me to register for the BigfootForums instead of lurking around in the shadows of cyberspace. 

 

For this particular episode, the Finding Bigfoot cast members were faced with a situation where one producer wanted to push the "scary dangerous" bigfoot angle.  We three bigfooters (and Ranae too, though she doesn't think bigfoots are even real, so I'll leave her out of this discussion) view that as part of the problem with television depictions of sasquatches, so we pushed back against this particular producer.  Nobody was on board for that scary, overused angle but this one guy. The other producers knew we wouldn't go for it, and if we're not on board with something, it can get really difficult really fast.  We bigfooters are a hard-to-handle bunch of folks on a good day.  Don't let Bobo's teddy bear demeanor fool you.  Don't even get me started on trying to tell MM what to do...  I'm a pretty stubborn and pig-headed guy as well, despite how I'm edited.  We three individuals guide the bigfoot content of the show as well as we can from the back seat.  This was a situation where some back seat driving was needed.

 

So, if you perceived that we seemed to go a bit overboard with the "gentle giant" thing, you are probably right.  We never know what will make the edited version of the show, so we give it to the editors several times and hopefully one of the times we say it might make it through the editing process.  In this case, the editors made sure that our message was clear.  Bigfoots are not the murderous, violent monsters that television would want you to believe.  

 

For whatever it's worth, and solely speaking my own opinion...  These things are giant wild animals.  Of course they're potentially dangerous.  Chimps, who only stand around four feet tall, have strength that is 8 to 12 times greater than a person.  How much more so is a bigfoot's strength?  No matter how human-like anyone thinks sasquatches are, if people came in that size and dimension, they'd be amazingly dangerous too.  I just don't think they're an aggressive species.  If they were out to get us, there would be very few of us left.

 

-----------------------------

 

THE FOLLOWING IS MY TEXT, NOT CLIFF'S.

 

That there are people who cannot tell the difference between "promoting" the truth (that the majority of BF people are not aggressive) and promoting an absurd assertion (that a handful of reports could -- or SHOULD! -- "typify" the BF people on our minds) is beyond comprehension, to me.  

 

And the resistance to understanding WHY there ARE a very few reports of BF being aggressive is, again, beyond comprehension. 

Edited February 20, 2016 by LeafTalker

[TritonTr196]

Interesting insights about BFRO reporting, Triton. Coupled w their show's sort of "rosey" outlook of all things BF, it's as if they choose to play the role of PR hacks making sure BF has a good image at all cost. While that may help to pull people in and be better for BF awareness in the long run, if it's a (sometimes) false perception it could put people in danger.

I have also seen enough hair raising accounts of hunters harassed in deer stands and even a sighting of one BF having killed another to make me keep my guard up. I look forward to your reports.

The story of Bigfoot killing another one you speak of, is this the one where a hunter shot one and it went out on a sandbar and one came out broke it's neck then others came out and made lunch of him? I think someone posted that last summer and I've tried to find the post it was in. If not, sorry.

[JDL]

If they were universally homicidal I wouldn't be alive.  But I still can't buy that they are universally benign.

 

I believe that one's safety in the company bigfoot is situational, and that there are situations in which one's life would be in jeopardy.

Edited February 20, 2016 by JDL

[Gotta Know]

Hey LeafTalker, I've always valued your insights and can see that this line of (fearful? cautious? negative?) thinking truly disappoints you. As a knower, you have a perspective that few really have, and it's a refreshing one at that. So please do keep sharing what you've learned and experienced. I'd certainly like to think that BF is a true gentle giant.

 

However, as someone who is trying to sift through all sources to come to my own conclusions about what BF is or is not, I feel the cautious approach is best. For me. Until (if ever) I have my own interactions that I can base an opinion on, considering all possibilities makes the most sense.

 

I mean, "zapping" hardly seems like a friendly gesture, for starters. While their reasons for it might be quite innocent (keeping someone away from their young, etc), it is still quite an intrusive and possibly very harmful act directed at another. And  it's not even something I've ever read at BFRO, though I've seen it in enough other places from people I respect that I believe zapping to be a real thing.

 

There is something about the wide range of experiences and opinions out there that to me, is worth a cautious approach in and of itself. Your reality could be quite different from another persons, as simple as that. But again, thank you for sharing your great insights!

 

GK

[SWWASAS]

If they were universally homicidal I wouldn't be alive.  But I still can't buy that they are universally benign.

 

I believe that one's safety in the company bigfoot is situational, and that there are situations in which one's life would be in jeopardy.

I don't think anything is universally benign. If you get right down to it the woods are not benign. All those tall rotting trees just waiting for a gust of wind to come down on someone. That is even without consideration of the animal life. Most interactions with large animals are situational. While most people consider deer benign, deer kill more humans than any other woodland animal. The zapping thing while unpleasant, is preferable to having my head ripped off. So maybe BF thinks they are doing us a favor if they feel they need to zap because we are a problem. In my case I asked one to stop, and it did. I thought that was a good sign. Of course the BF may not have understood a thing I said, and was incredulous that I was so numb that I did not know I was being zapped.

Edited February 20, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[georgerm]

Here is a typical aggressive bigfoot report that repeats often with hunters. So what's might be going on here?

 

 

REPORT RECEIVED: From the GCBRO submissions page.
 

DATE:  12/98
 

 
TIME: Late Evening Early Morning
 

LOCATION:  Mount Ranier, Washington, Pierce County

 

TERRAIN:  Wooded, mountain area

 

OBSERVED:  I have a sighting I would like to tell you, & a few undeniable facts I would like to point out.  First off I'm not a nut,and neather is my brother.  Secondly the experiance I'm going to tell you is, at least to my brother, is real.  He would have no reason to lie to me about it. Lastly I can only give you the story second handed, I wasn't there with him.

 

I will not devulge my Brothers name, nor the man that was with him on that night.  They're both in the armed forces and have to think about they're security clearences. But I will refere them by 1&2. My brother being 1.

 

About 4 weeks ago both 1&2 had decided to go hunting on the military reservation near Mt. Raineir in Washington.
Both finding a place for a suitable camp and setting up they went into the woods. Upon their return, they found that their
camp site had been destroyed, an their food was gone. (2 being a experianced hunter in that part of the country knew that they needed to hang their food in a tree so the bears woudn't get to it.)  So both 1&2 sat on the tail gate of 1 truck and thought about what they should do. thats when they both noticed the enormous tracks around the truck, also the truck had been pushed to the side about 10 feet at the front of the truck.  Then they got to thinking that it was a local hunter that didn't want them to camp at that spot. So they both loaded up and went to town to get some supper and more supplies.

 

At supper they admitted to having one beer each, buying what food they would need for the next two day's{ I need t
also add that they're tent was torn to shreds, so they could- not se it, they both deciced they would sleep the remainder
of they're hunt in the camper shell of 1 truck.}  they made they're way back to the campsite and at around 10:30 p.m. went to sleep

 

At or around 3:00a.m. 1 woke up to what he described as a smell that was a combination of a hog barn with a lot of
dead animals rotting away in it. then he herd the most menising growl he had ever had the unfortune of hearing. Thats when 2 woke up and 1 was trying to load a magazine into his 357 mag desart eagle.  So 2 got his flaslight and shone it on the clear plexy glass window of the camper, there was this creature looking right at them back and thats when this thing started to howl and shake the truck so violently that at one point they both thought the truck was going to roll over. during they're ordeal the campershell started to colaspe and 1 was feaverishly trying to load his pistol and make ready for what he thought was his last minutes. then all of a sudden it just stopped and after about two hours this thing left them in a pretty shaken-up state.

 

At day brake they both made they're way to the cab of the truck and left the area.  As 1 had discribed to me the creature looked like he wasn't happy that these two young soilders in it's part of the woods.  Because at the point the flashlight was shone on it it looked at them both and started barring it's teeth.  1 said all the teeth was fairly big, but what caught they're attention was it had the face of a man and these's canine like a baboon, just enormous fangs. Thats when 2 apparently said " Oh ****, it ate our food for an appitizer, now it's going to eat us as a main course.

 

So what could be triggering bigfoot?

 

1. They camped by mistake in active bigfoot claimed land. There are many other areas not claimed.

2. Bigfoot looked the hunters over, and saw their guns which pissed them off.

3. One bigfoot was cranky and has mental issues.

4. A bigfoot was hungry and wanted to eat them.

5. One bigfoot was harmed in the past by humans and has a vendetta.

6. When several bigfoots are hunting together, decide to bed down, and if humans come around, can this send them into a rage?

7. Bigfoots don't like or trust humans and humans irritate them to different degrees. Depends of their mood that day. If they liked us, they would come up for a back scratch and bring us a rabbit for dinner.   

 

So which do you account for the aggressive behavior described in the report?

 

The bottom line is bigfoots are leary of humans, and they don't usually allow humans to live with them to do a study on their behavior. Habituators seem to only see bigfoot when they come close to get their food and aren't aware of their day to day habits.

Edited February 20, 2016 by georgerm

[Explorer]

Geogerm,

 

Bottom line on that report is that if BF wanted to kill them it could have, but it did not.

 

The reasons could be one or a combination of all of the above except #4.

 

The behavior reported sounds like the creature wanted them out of there (by scaring them) - not so much to kill them or eat them. 

 

I have read other reports like these.

 

Where are the photos of the damage to the truck and campsite?  I guess back in 1998 the world had not discovered I-phones and smart phones with cameras yet. 

 

I am not a hunter, but I guess not all hunters carry cameras?

[Guest]

Three Spanaway searchers combing a densely wooded hillside near Issaquah last weekend claim they found a half dozen enormous footprints. The searchers discovered what they think are Sasquatch tracks during a search for more bodies in an area where the remains of two Seattle women were found last summer. Ther searchers were Mrs. Marie Watson, a member of Northwest Bloodhounds Search and Rescue Team, her son Robert, 18, and a friend, Jay Stockwell. The trio was planning for a major search scheduled for the area next Sunday. The area was where partial remains of Janice Ott, Denise Naslund and an unidentified woman were found last summer. Mrs. Watson said the huge prints appeared to have been made with a bare foot and were imbedded an inch into the mud. She estimated they had been there a week, Robert, who wears a size 10 1/2 shoe, said the prints were six inches longer and three inches wider his boots. The stride between tracks was much longer than a man's, he said. Mrs. Watson, a well-known and experienced Northwest tracker, said the prints definitely were not human. "They were not from human feet," she said. "The one I examined had a kind of thumb and an arch." Mrs. Watson said she was frightened by the size of the tracks and somewhat fearful since her bloodhounds had been left at home. "I wasn't even thinking about Sasquatch, and when I saw them, I thought My God in Heaven," she said. Mrs. Watson isn't sure what made the deep tracks in the lonely woods above Issaquah, but something big obviously did, she said. The question is What was it?

 

Searchers report huge footprints, Tacoma News Tribune, Wednesday, February 19, 1975 (WA)

I was stationed in Ft. Lewis, Washington during my military days and I can tell you, I never seen anyplace that has roads signs warning not of deer crossing but BF crossing. Back then, I didn't pay it much attention but some of those stretches get mighty dark outside of the cities at night. I would not like to break down out there at night ...

I am having a hard time finding the root article for this story in the Tacoma Tribune. I am able to find it quoted several times on various websites, but nothing showing either a clip of the original story or a link to it. Northwest Bloodhounds is a real group, but I can find no mention of a Marie Watson anywhere outside of this story. The story hints at the women's deaths being somehow tied to Bigfoot, but Ott and Naslund were both killed by Ted Bundy. He 'hypothetically' recounted their deaths during an interview before being put to death. This seems to me to be a fabricated story, with a few strands of truth woven in to make it seem more plausible. Does anyone have a source for this?

[Guest Ent007]

On 10/17/2014 at 6:00 PM, jayjeti said:

I've heard of old legends of them beheading people.  For the most part sasquatches seem to avoid people.  I agree with BobbyO that they can be dangerous and hurt humans at times.  And there are certainly many stories, particularly Indian legends, of them killing humans.  Here is an excerpt from an article about interations with Indians.  The "Seeahtik" is one name for bigfoot. The Indians retaliated after having some women stolen and it says 12 of them were ripped apart.

 

"Allen Chenois added that the Tyapish had not killed any Indians of the past generation that he knows of, but he had heard that former Chehalis Indians had been murdered at times by the giant Indians. They were so strong it is known they could pull a grown man’s head right off.  L. Peter James of the Lummi tribe related last year to the writer that the Seeahtik always leaves a tiny branch of cedar tree at places they have visited or upon people whom they have killed or played a practical joke on. The Duwamish tribe at one time related that some of their women had been stolen. The Seeahtiks in a rage killed 12 of the Duwamish tribe by ripping them in two. Mr. James’ mother, who is still alive, was a witness to the tragedy. She said; “They took our young men like toys, turning them upside down and ripping them in two like a piece of calico. Never again did the Duwamish tribe seek revenge when their women and babies were stolen by these Snayihum or Indians of the night and brothers to the Noseless one.â€

 

http://hamell.net/earliest-documented-bigfoot-sighting-in-pacific-northwest-part-2/

There are quite a few of these descriptions of people's heads being popped off from the 1800's forward, from the midwest all the way up to the Yukon territory in Canada. The more digging I do, the less certain I am that you're guaranteed a pass if you run across one and you're on your own.

 

From the Indigenous people I've spoken to up here, there seems to be more fear than comfort of the subject.

 

Cheers,

 

Nb

This just my opinion of course. 

[WA Native son]

It seems to me that this type of activity started subsiding about the time that the Henry and Winchester rifles became prevalent if we consider the historical accounts. 16 rounds in rapid succession would make anything think twice, let alone something even slightly sentient. 

 

Lots of the native tribes spoke of different types of these creatures, some who were or are more predictably violent and aggressive. I lean toward this myself. I would think long and hard about taking any kind of presumptions good or bad for granted when approaching an area that is remotely suspected of being habituated. Some of the most prevalent Bigfoot related media content out there is teaching people to provoke them. 

 

My families experience with one as a kid was enough to know that just being in an area they are in can be enough for them to become pretty aggressive and intrusive.

 

The size and physical attributes of this creature lend us as a species to be very wary of even half hearted aggressive intents on their part. Pretty smart if you ask me. I've never traveled the woods unarmed and never will. The first time you come across cloths and a backpack on a game trail in the middle of nowhere it makes you think long and hard about just how vulnerable you are out there.

[starchunk]

On 3/27/2017 at 1:33 AM, WA Native son said:

It seems to me that this type of activity started subsiding about the time that the Henry and Winchester rifles became prevalent if we consider the historical accounts. 16 rounds in rapid succession would make anything think twice, let alone something even slightly sentient. 

 

Lots of the native tribes spoke of different types of these creatures, some who were or are more predictably violent and aggressive. I lean toward this myself. I would think long and hard about taking any kind of presumptions good or bad for granted when approaching an area that is remotely suspected of being habituated. Some of the most prevalent Bigfoot related media content out there is teaching people to provoke them. 

 

My families experience with one as a kid was enough to know that just being in an area they are in can be enough for them to become pretty aggressive and intrusive.

 

The size and physical attributes of this creature lend us as a species to be very wary of even half hearted aggressive intents on their part. Pretty smart if you ask me. I've never traveled the woods unarmed and never will. The first time you come across cloths and a backpack on a game trail in the middle of nowhere it makes you think long and hard about just how vulnerable you are out there.

 

 

I disagree. I would think it's just the result of variance in diet, climate and just more mundane factors.

[SWWASAS]

I would guess the biggest factor in BF aggressiveness might be how that BF tribe had been treated by humans.      If members had been shot, killed, etc. they might be more inclined to deal in violent ways to humans who get too intrusive.