Guest Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Bigfoot, Fire, Weapons, Tools, and other oddities When I found and read these things all I could do was shake my head, and remain confused by own extrapolations. I mean Bigfoot using tools, fire, wearing clothes? A fascinating thought ... I came upon additional details of questions that I often wondered yet never seemed ask, do we know anything other than smell, height, wood formations and so and so forth? I was doing a little reading and research when it struck with a flash of quick insight, and I continued on knowing full well I would return to the topic. let's cut to the chase and get this going. Would it surprise anyone to know these beings were reported have used fire presumably to cook with? Have uttered some astounding phrases in plain English? Or, that they have been reported to possess enough cognitive ability to recognize or understand the use of weapons albeit in crude fashion? Let's talk about it, and see if there are other oddities that do not reach mainstream attention. This my is Fish, my opening move as we say in the board of chess. On a bright sunny day an old Windland Daily Democrat new article published on June 12, 1891, reported a "wild man" had taken up abode in a sink located inside the belly of a creek not far from the town of Yolo, California. A sink is a short common word used today to describe sinkholes. Interestingly, "sinks" or sinkholes, caves and other similar geological karst like anomalies are often associated with present day Bigfoot reports. Anyways back to the news article, the creature was described as standing upwards of six feet, weighing approximately 200 pounds with long light colored hair, and shy it said. It was apparently first spotted by local hunters who gave chase into some thick underbrush where it disappeared. However, it was reported the pursuers did locate a "wickup." A "wickup," to my best recollection was a local term of the time to describe a fire. Beyond this strange discovery were very crude cooking elements along with a bloodied club. In so far as the articles reads, the inhabitants of that part of the county were of the opinion that it was harmless and therefore they had no complaints about it .... Fire? Tools and weapon? That is the first move, what do you say? Do we know all about this creature? Are there things we don't know and should? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Dunno about anyone else, but I don't put too much faith in reports from the 19th century. It seems the modern era of bigfoot sightings commenced in October, 1967. Thanks again to Mr. Patterson and Mr. Gimlin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKH Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) There was an interesting thread about tool use here a short time ago. Most topics have already come up, so the search function is very useful in further learning. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/46494-rudimentary-tool-use/?hl=tool I wonder if the news article meant to use the word "wickiup". That makes more sense. Edited November 2, 2014 by JKH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Dunno about anyone else, but I don't put too much faith in reports from the 19th century. I agree, there have been reports from Indian tribes back in the 1800's of BF's abducting their women, suppose if the BF "mated" with her and an offspring was produced. There were reports some smaller BF's that looked more human.. just throwing that out for debate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Hell JKH - You're probably right, it is often difficult to decipher the print and they never used spellchecker then either. Good reply though. Hello Mythos - There has been a lot of talk of late, discussing types od species, whether or not there one or four and five as some even suggest. What has always puzzled me was some of these things maintain a fair complexioned, with light hair and piercing Caucasian-like blue or green eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 In yet another similar occasion we have another instance of an implied weapon, this time from across the country to the great state of Florida. It was early fall when the Davenport Daily Leader published a report a report on September 28, 1900, in it mentions a strange creature seen skulking close to a house. It was described as a four foot red faced monster having a man-like figure with short shaggy black hair. Its arms it says were long and it walked upright in a crouching manner. That sound familiar enough. Towns people who tried to catch it say that its fingers looked like claws and foot tracks it left looked like sharp claws. Three bloodhounds were directed to the chase, but one of the dogs reacted strangely and begun showing "acute" symptoms of fear and refused to track ... One of the pursuers who got enough to see the monster said it growled and shook a club. Several more dogs put on the trail of the fleeing thing returned trembling with fear and no amount of persuasion could get them to work. Again, there is mention of a club which is enough for me to raise an eyeball of curiosity. My apologies to you JKH, my "O" key was stuck ... Haaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) I agree, there have been reports from Indian tribes back in the 1800's of BF's abducting their women, suppose if the BF "mated" with her and an offspring was produced. There were reports some smaller BF's that looked more human.. just throwing that out for debate... I agree with you. Those poor women were both a food source, and a sexual partner. Either conclusion is just unimaginable for normal people to begin to comprehend. Plus the off spring were neither human nor beast, but something else, and probably outcasts as well. Edited November 2, 2014 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lightheart Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) I am the one who started the original thread and I will say that after 11 months of visiting my area for 7 or 8 hours per week plus additional time spent in my days off. IMHO they do use tools and are definitely NOT dumb apes. In addition to the tools mentioned in the original thread I believe they also use shorter cedar clubs, 3 to 4 foot rudimentary spears, and a knobby short stick for retrieving small mud crabs. These tools are moved from one day to the next and from week to week. I believe the short spears are used for frogs and possibly for fish or crabs. I have had multiple sightings in this area and was with a friend yesterday who saw something large and brown duck behind a downed tree off to the left about 100 yards or so. I have not yet mentioned to her anything about them. They have done nothing threatening ever and I have been hiking alone every week. They are much more like an archaic people than a dumb ape. I respect that they are wild and always use caution. I do not look for them or approach their bedding sites. I just hike on the trails.... They are not the monsters you think they are but they could rip you apart if they wanted to. They don't want to be seen and will NOT approach humans except at a distance to observe what you are doing as you pass through their space. Edited November 2, 2014 by lightheart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Ive read alot of old newspaper articles talking about BFs being seen with clubs. I believe they use tools Very interesting stuff Lightheart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Gumshoeye. I believe the word in the story should be Wickiup and it is a shelter made from sticks/saplings arranged in a dome or teepee shape and then covered with a layer of grasses, cattail mats or debris, really whatever was close at hand and to the extent that it would protect them from the elements. The wickiup name was used in the west and southwest were a lot of the time it was just made with sticks formed teepee shape and covered with a little bit of loose brush to protect from sun and wind. A very similar structure was used in the east and it was called a Wigwam and was normally covered with bark sheets and or grasses bound together and tied in a fashion like shingles to shed water. I have not read any sightings I can remember about the use of fire but have read several that would support they are not afraid of it like other animals. One seen playing with a stick from the fire that was a glowing coal on the end. Another account of a Sasquatch scaring away a couple kids and stomping their fire out. I have read reports from Alaska of a people their that use tools, fire, clothes and even weapons that they steel from campers hikers etc. , They tend to be described more like feral humans and not to many comanalities with a Sasquatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 3, 2014 Admin Share Posted November 3, 2014 Bigfoot, Fire, Weapons, Tools, and other oddities When I found and read these things all I could do was shake my head, and remain confused by own extrapolations. I mean Bigfoot using tools, fire, wearing clothes? A fascinating thought ... I came upon additional details of questions that I often wondered yet never seemed ask, do we know anything other than smell, height, wood formations and so and so forth? I was doing a little reading and research when it struck with a flash of quick insight, and I continued on knowing full well I would return to the topic. let's cut to the chase and get this going. Would it surprise anyone to know these beings were reported have used fire presumably to cook with? Have uttered some astounding phrases in plain English? Or, that they have been reported to possess enough cognitive ability to recognize or understand the use of weapons albeit in crude fashion? Let's talk about it, and see if there are other oddities that do not reach mainstream attention. This my is Fish, my opening move as we say in the board of chess. On a bright sunny day an old Windland Daily Democrat new article published on June 12, 1891, reported a "wild man" had taken up abode in a sink located inside the belly of a creek not far from the town of Yolo, California. A sink is a short common word used today to describe sinkholes. Interestingly, "sinks" or sinkholes, caves and other similar geological karst like anomalies are often associated with present day Bigfoot reports. Anyways back to the news article, the creature was described as standing upwards of six feet, weighing approximately 200 pounds with long light colored hair, and shy it said. It was apparently first spotted by local hunters who gave chase into some thick underbrush where it disappeared. However, it was reported the pursuers did locate a "wickup." A "wickup," to my best recollection was a local term of the time to describe a fire. Beyond this strange discovery were very crude cooking elements along with a bloodied club. In so far as the articles reads, the inhabitants of that part of the county were of the opinion that it was harmless and therefore they had no complaints about it .... Fire? Tools and weapon? That is the first move, what do you say? Do we know all about this creature? Are there things we don't know and should? How do we know that this wild man wasn't just that? A wild Homo Sapien? Ever hear about Ishi? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Hello Norseman, good question .... How do we know that Bigfoot isn't? I don't have the answer for that .... Hello Dave NC - Thanks for the information. I have stop reading those Louis L'amour books ... Good reply! Hello Lightheart, the World could use more people like you. Thank you for the reply! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 3, 2014 Admin Share Posted November 3, 2014 Hello Norseman, good question .... How do we know that Bigfoot isn't? I don't have the answer for that .... Hello Dave NC - Thanks for the information. I have stop reading those Louis L'amour books ... Good reply! Hello Lightheart, the World could use more people like you. Thank you for the reply! That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, is that the report you posted seems to describe a primitive Homo Sapien. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 I acknowledge that Norseman, it could very well be but its certainly strange is it not? I'm open for all possibilities ... I was discussing something similar with another individual not long ago about other types of species. It seems to be an accepted part of conversation with more and more people. Somebody mentioned, or maybe it was mentioned in one of D. Paulides books .... around the Great Smokey Mountains. Somebody suggested feral men. I simply don't know and I'm throwing it up in the air for discussion. Have you heard similar things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Hello SSQ, another good reply. I mentioned it before about fair skinned, light haired creatures with obvious Caucasian like features that have been reported, and the Robin egg blue eyes are traits that have me seriously thinking something's up with this picture ... It forces me to re-think everything I think I knew about this man-beast. Good post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts