Bigfoot, Fire, Weapons, Tools And Other Oddities

[Guest]

Another description of the wearing of the "skins of animals"  from 1899:

 

 

From:  Des Moines Daily News -   Des Moines, Iowa   September 27, 1899

                                                                                     THAT WILD MAN.
                                                                                                ---------
                                                                    Believed He Has Gone North From Diagonal.
 
DIAGONAL, Sept. 27. --   This town was thrown into a fever of excitement day before yesterday over the report of the wild man near the farm
 of a man by the name of Frink.  Frink chased the monster for a ways, then lost sight of him in the timber.  A number of men from the surrounding
 country have scouted the timber but no trace of the wild man has been found.  Word was received here about noon that the thing had been seen
 in the vicinity of Kent, near Creston.
                                                                                         AT AFTON

AFTON, Sept. 27. --     The wild man of Ringgold county put in an appearance some seven miles from this place last night and created immense
 excitement. He appeared to have come to the chicken house of Mr. T.V. Prangle, about 9 at night, and made an attack upon the poultry, carrying
 off enough to make a large pile of feathers where he stopped for the meal.  Mr. Prangle heard the noise in the hen house and went to investigate,
 accompanied by his dog. The animal(dog) came in sight of the mysterious man or beast and beat a hasty treat. Mr. Prangle advanced alone and
 got a fair view of the mystery, whatever it is. His description corresponds entirely with the heretofore printed.

His impression is that it is not a wild beast, but an insane man of immense size. He thinks the man has been at large a long time and that the

appearance of long hair growing from his body is merely the skins of animals, with which he has clothed himself, and that the dark skin with which

he is credited, is the accumulation of dirt and the effect of the sun.  When he arrived at the chicken house, the wild man made a vicious attack

upon him, but desisted when Mr. Prangle placed himself in an attitude of defense, and ran away, carrying with him several hens.  When the wild

man left, he took the road towards Middle river, across the prairie."
 

[Guest]

Another interesting reference to wearing animal skins - British Columbia 1910:
 
 
 
 From:   Enderby Press -   British Columbia January 13, 1910

                                                     WILD MAN OF VANCOUVER
                                                                   ---------------------
                                                       STRANGE STORY FROM THE
                                                                 PACIFIC COAST.

                                                     Creature Said to Have Often Been
                                                         Seen in Forests — Once Shot
                                                                      By Hunter.

The recently reported case of a wild man said to be living upon roots and berries somewhere out in the woods of
Northern Saskatchewan, recalls the story once current of a weird creature which had its habitat in the dense forests
 of Vancouver Island. Some three or four years ago there were several tales going about of his having been seen.
 This wild man was a fearsome-looking creature according to reports; somewhat akin to a big monkey in
 appearance; nude in summer save for the animal-like growth of hair that almost covered his entire body; and when
 the raw, stormy days of the coast winter drenched the woods in rain, clothed in skins taken from some animal he
had slain.
                                                            SWIFT AS A DEER

The wild man was said to be as swift of foot as one  the island deer  and when once he glimpsed a human being,
 he would, so the yarns stated, speed away through the densest bush, bounding over logs and diving through
 underbrush with all the agility of a wild animal but no grown person ever managed to get a really good look at this
 modern faun. He was as shy as a black-tail, and the only humans who did get a chance to observe this sylvan
 monstrosity… some Siwash children—were so terror-stricken at the sight that they rushed away and crawled
under a bed when the man-monkey peered in at the window of their father's cabin.  And here beneath the
generous width of the family four-poster the Indian and his squaw upon returning home discovered their offspring
 hidden away like a covey of young partridges.

                                                         WOUNDED BY HUNTER.

On one occasion a deer hunter while walking along a lonely stretch of sea beach, espied a curious-looking animal
 digging clams out on the tidal flats. However the creature spotted the hunter and was off towards the woods with
 the speed of a hare. The deer hunter raised his rifle and fired a succession of shots at the running target. But
though the gunner declared that one of the bullets took effect, the quarry got away, and the thoughtless sportsman
 escaped perpetrating what might have been found to be murder.
 
                                                           JUST AN INVENTION

And still the mystery of the wild man remains unsolved, and somewhere in the trackless depths of the Vancouver
 Island bush he may still be fraternizing with the cougars and wolves and, like them, eeking out a living by preying
upon game…but though some credit his existence, it must be admitted that the inhabitants of the district he is said
to frequent regard the story as a myth—a piece of folk-lore invented by a drunken logger.

Edited November 6, 2014 by HairyWildMan

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

There are arguments regarding the intelligence possessed by sasquatch, and I have always maintained that their lack of higher level activities such as tool use might very well imply that they are not actually that intelligent. Of course their skill in their environment, and even evading humans, are not things that require higher level intelligence, which is a mistake that I think people sometimes make. If they had intelligence approaching that of a human we should expect them to have advanced beyond the level of other non-human primates that exist today, yet sasquatch do not appear to have made this leap. Part of the reason this is such a hard topic to ponder has to do with our lack of observation. We have no clue what sasquatch do when they're at "home," or wherever they spend time when they're not walking around looking for food or whatever.

 

 It should be noted that we have not really found many potential camps. Some have been found, yet have been assumed to have belonged to a human, even when there is really nothing proving that point. But from what I gather not enough have been found to accommodate a large percentage of the bigfoot population. I have long believed that the majority of them are to be found well into the forests, in places that humans rarely if ever travel. This is where many of their prey animals are going to be, and if affords them plenty of solitude. It is theoretically possible that the sightings on the fringes of civilization are of sasquatch who have stepped out of the recesses of the forests for some reason, and that they retreat after spending a short period of time there, and that sightings in these fringe areas do not afford the witness the opportunity to observe the bigfoot using tools or fire, as that is something they do further in the forest where they have roots.

 

It seems awfully convenient though, to the point that it seems unlikely. If they used tools or fire, they likely would do so in places where they would have been observed at some point. Perhaps I am not aware of all the reports of tool use and fire, but I do not think there would be enough of them to be significant. With all things considered I do not think bigfoot use fire. Their tool use likely extends only to "found" objects. If we could observe them doing what they naturally do, I'm sure we would see them do some very intelligent things. They would likely use digging implements, blunt force instruments, perhaps they would use "clubs" to kill or daze prey animals, etc...I have no doubt of that, considering what other non-human primates have been seen doing. But I do not think that this intelligence approaches our intelligence. I do not think sasquatch have a language, primarily because there would be no way for it to spread, considering they do not appear to be highly sociable, even among their own species. They very well might possess the ability for some primitive type of speech, but they don't have language. They perhaps could mimic a variety of sounds, but their skill in this area would vary with each individual and the amount of practice they've had. So they're likely a bit smarter than other non-human primates, but only barely. The only way to know for sure is to observe them for an extended period of time.

[Guest]

Well, the problem is that in order to live in the forest as they do, they need a huge physicality, which may negate the need /development of tools, but from reports, does not rule out human-level intelligence. They are known to play jokes, we have some voice prints of them, laughing at the humans (Sierra Sounds), etc...

 

Don't Gorillas have 'human level intelligence' on some levels? Chimps? This is social intelligence maybe, not mathematical, technical etc. So human 'social' level intelligence, well heck dogs have some of that.

[georgerm]

In my opinion bigfoot demonstrates survival  and rudimentary intelligence somewhere between gorillas and human. This intelligence requires innovation, learning from others, remembering, a steady flow of thoughts, use of materials, basic language, love-hate ...............and so on.

 

 

 

 

In some of the old accounts, like in the 1800's, they are called wild men and in some accounts it seems people tried to justify what they were seeing by describing them as people wearing animal hides when in fact they were observing sasquatches, not men.  Just today someone posted a story saying just that in the thread, .....................I believe a lot of what is described as gigantic men wearing animal hides, or even the tattered hat you mention, could be people trying to rationalize what they are seeing in familiar terms.

 

In the Dennis Martin case of the boy that was abducted in the 1960's a ranger said there had been reports of wild men wearing animal skins in the area, interesting.

 

 

 Bigfoot's face has appeared human looking rather than monkey like according to many witnesses. This reinforces the wild-man is really bigfoot theory.

 

http://www.microkhan.com/2013/01/17/a-serious-approach/ ; "If you pay the slightest bit of attention to high-profile criminal cases, you have doubtless encountered the sketches of Harvey Pratt. The Oklahoma-based forensic artist is one of the masters of his craft, and thus a frequent attendee at trials where cameras are verboten. He is also a pioneer of post-mortem reconstruction techniques, which allow police to envision what severely traumatized homicide victims looked like prior to meeting their unfortunate ends. Pratt’s curiosity is not confined to the grisly, however: He is also the most serious-minded Bigfoot artist you’ll ever encounter. In attempting to shed light on the mythical creatures that allegedly stalk North America’s forest, Pratt deals with primary sources no differently than he would for his day job:"  read more........

 

Below are police artist sketches from eye witness accounts and not guesses. The bigfoots below and shown in the book called Tribal Bigfoot by Paulides shows very human like bigfoots. This caused me to wonder if the bigfoots in some areas are more human looking than in other areas.

Edited November 6, 2014 by georgerm

[Guest]

I'm convinced that only a small portion of the "wild man " sightings were of the "covered-with-hair" type (including those described as clothed in animal skins)......and I base that on my research of newspaper archives.

 

I'm only guessing but will conservatively guesstimate that for every "hair-covered wild man" article I've found....I've screened, at least,....40 to 50 articles to exclude the "wild men" that were NOT hair covered.....those kind that included recluses, hobos, and/or mind-lost individuals that were usually described as shabby, filthy, emaciated,etc.... usually having LONG HEAD-HAIR and BEARD that was unkempt and filthy ; also wearing raggedty clothes, if any....but with normal human features and size..... and all lacking the signature hair-covered body and abnormal features normally identified with "hairy wild men" or Sasquatch/Bigfoot- type creatures.

They also usually can and do speak human languages,...usually English, Spanish, or other identifiable language.     I started out collecting the most interesting articles/accounts of the hairless "wild men/women"....but the numbers were getting too high and I quit doing after I'd had garnered near a thousand accounts of these....(in addition to the HWM and other strange creatures articles/accounts).

  

   I'll note that some creatures reported included gigantic "men-like" monsters that possessed the physical attributes/abilities of what we associate with Sas/BF but are otherwise lacking the hirsute characteristic - the report in the Georgia Statesman describing the giant which tore off the heads of 4-5 men before being killed himself,....if I remember right,....didn't have the hirsute description.

    I've also found accounts of man-like creatures that had some hair but were covered in what was described as scales....these creatures were usually described as being somewhat aquatic.....at least yearning to be in water....not mermen or mermaids....but maybe have some webbing between toes and fingers....and scales on their bodies....often with bulging eyes....eating only raw flesh.....no cooked food.....certainly wild.  High strangeness, for sure!

 

Georgerm - thanks for posting the police artist sketches from Tribal Bigfoot.   Interesting how the expressions on their faces seem to be other than hideous, fearful or grotesque......like so many other different accounts that describe an ulgy, hideous ape-like or gorilla-like face and head, so different from the human-like faces described in numerous accounts.  One can't help but deduce that ther ARE different kinds of

(dare I say)  hybrids?

Edited November 6, 2014 by HairyWildMan

[Guest]

Checking over post#70 (previous page) there is a curious photo of a creature ... Anyone want look at it and venture a guess or opinion?

 

The photos in their entirety can be found at: Monroe Talks.com

 

You Talk

 

Monroe History

 

Monroe Monster Bigfoot Lurking page 21

[georgerm]

I'm convinced that only a small portion of the "wild man " sightings were of the "covered-with-hair" type (including those described as clothed in animal skins)......and I base that on my research of newspaper archives.

 

 

 

Interesting and keep up the good work. A few years back a member, Tiradesman, look up old paper articles. Does anyone know where his reports went?

 

We had frontiers men back then and I suppose a fair number delusional homicidal humans lurked around too.............sounds strange.

 

So you are saying a majority of the reports describe a wild human or feral human? hummm...........

 

The reports posted that describe a wild man that rips humans apart must be bigfoot obviously. We have to take into account traumatic visual events, dark conditions, short glimpses, and finally poor witnesses. Then a reporter hears the account second hand and changes parts since the have no ideas what a bigfoot.

 

Some reports hard really hard to discern between human or bigfoot. New word for me, hirsute!

 

Full Definition of HIRSUTE

1

:  hairy 1

2

:  covered with coarse stiff hairs <a hirsute leaf>

Edited November 6, 2014 by georgerm

[Guest]

Hey Georgerm.......well, I'm strictly referring to the "wild man" nomenclature....if you use the key phrase "wild man" in searching these archives....you'll have the results I'm referring to......that is,....out of every 50 or so "wild man" hits that comes up....you'll find maybe one that describes a wild man "covered with hair".  I've learned that the best results for researching the newspaper articles, looking for the Hairy Kind,....you'll find more positive results if you use key phrases like " man-beast", "man-ape", "looks like a gorilla" (or ape), or simply "like a gorilla", like an ape, like an orang outang,...even the word "hirsute" or "covered with hair" ....each of these suggestions will bring far more positive results....than wild man.  "Hideous" was used a lot back then...be it hideous creature, monster, beast.....these descriptions bring far better results,....as does horrible, terrifying, gigantic.....oh,....and "singular"

 

BTW - I've also specifically looked for "Wild Woman" or "wild boy' or girl....with some interesting results....I have between 35-40 old newspaper articles describing  hair-covered wild women that usually individually whipped one or more men trying to capture her.  The hairy wild kids usually give a difficult fight trying to evade capture....not always,...some are rather docile but fearful.  Almost all, if not all,...of the hairy wild women & children articles are about creatures that are hairy but not gigantic....they're usually about 5-6 ft tall (women) and 4-5 ft tall for the young ones...........all wild, no recognizable spoken language,...but chatter, jibberish, screams, growls, etc. are described.  These are the types I look for..

 

The word hirsute was used more frequently in the 19th century than in the 20th century or later....it was a new word for me too, not too long ago!

Edited November 6, 2014 by HairyWildMan

[David NC]

Gumshoeye. The pic on the previous page looks very compelling. The figure is up a tree, has its right arm bent as if touching or holding the tree for support or balance. I would lean more toward the real thing than a person in a suit because of the distance between the nose and mouth.

[Guest Divergent1]

If there is a Bigfoot out there, I'm sure they could master fire. All it would take is finding a dropped lighter. According to these articles Bonobos and Chimps are capable of learning the technique.

 

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/congo-a-group-of-chimpanzees-seem-to-have-mastered-fire/

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMbWDRzqNhc

 

http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2009/dec/wildfires

Chimps aren't all the same, bigfoot might not be either. Here is an article on the divergence of chimp lines with info about the proto-human behavior noted in western chimps to include the use of spears.

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/12/13/are-western-chimpanzees-a-new-species-of-pan/

Edited November 6, 2014 by Divergent1

[Guest]

Hey Georgerm.......well, I'm strictly referring to the "wild man" nomenclature....if you use the key phrase "wild man" in searching these archives....you'll have the results I'm referring to......that is,....out of every 50 or so "wild man" hits that comes up....you'll find maybe one that describes a wild man "covered with hair".  I've learned that the best results for researching the newspaper articles, looking for the Hairy Kind,....you'll find more positive results if you use key phrases like " man-beast", "man-ape", "looks like a gorilla" (or ape), or simply "like a gorilla", like an ape, like an orang outang,...even the word "hirsute" or "covered with hair" ....each of these suggestions will bring far more positive results....than wild man.  "Hideous" was used a lot back then...be it hideous creature, monster, beast.....these descriptions bring far better results,....as does horrible, terrifying, gigantic.....oh,....and "singular"

 

BTW - I've also specifically looked for "Wild Woman" or "wild boy' or girl....with some interesting results....I have between 35-40 old newspaper articles describing  hair-covered wild women that usually individually whipped one or more men trying to capture her.  The hairy wild kids usually give a difficult fight trying to evade capture....not always,...some are rather docile but fearful.  Almost all, if not all,...of the hairy wild women & children articles are about creatures that are hairy but not gigantic....they're usually about 5-6 ft tall (women) and 4-5 ft tall for the young ones...........all wild, no recognizable spoken language,...but chatter, jibberish, screams, growls, etc. are described.  These are the types I look for..

 

The word hirsute was used more frequently in the 19th century than in the 20th century or later....it was a new word for me too, not too long ago!

 I believe that all of the points that you have excellently made are right on the money. Well done Hairy Wild man! 

[Guest]

Thanks, SSQ!

[Guest]

I don't know if you need to duck & cover yet. It probably depends on how insane you appear to be on other subjects. I had already blown it by posting a picture of what I thought was a BF, peeping in an excessively high window in my house, among a few other "extraordinary claims". So you may still have a chance to save yourself.

 

If I recall correctly, it wasn't received too badly when I first mentioned "HEARING ABOUT IT". But as time passed & the post was twisted & tangled, it seemed to grow & grow in the minds of certain (somewhat confused) people. The last I heard on the subject, it was causing a mass exodus of "serious researchers & upstanding members" from the forum.   So great was the horror of it, that it's a wonder anybody is still here!!!!

 

Well lets be completely honest. Not only did you put forth the overalls and clothing worn by BF but you also said they hopped freight trains and chain smoked cigarettes.

 

I wouldn't call it a mass exodus, but 10 or 12 upstanding members/serious researchers did leave because they felt our allowing such nonsense to be posted diminished the subject and forum.

 

So tell the whole story and not just the one that paints you in a positive light.

 

We can take this to the Premium area if you wish. We can both speak much more frankly there.

 

If memory serves, you claimed almost daily/nightly interactions with BF. I offered to fund a research team to come to your location and gather evidence and you rebuffed it.

Edited November 6, 2014 by HRPuffnstuff

[Guest]

The intended purpose of this topic was to provoke thought and discussion. I have stepped back a few hours to read and study the responses and there some very provocative responses. Very good!

 

Daily discoveries case science and academia to trash old ideas and thoughts for new ones as have in the past for new ideas and will so in the future. While both academia and science joist one another with principles and counter proposals, written and rewritten theories about Bigfoot, I choose to let them have at.  

 

I choose to let them write and argue their own positions. I am neither beholden to their beliefs anymore than I can defer my natural born right to think and feel.

 

So when I say that, I cannot believe there is any hard and steadfast boundaries these beings do not cross. There are too many reports of these being creatures wearing or attempting to wear clothing apparel over the years for whatever purpose. I am certain I cannot explain. The fact that numerous circumstances surrounding missing persons specifically involve disrobing victims cannot be easily dismissed out hand either. While a single report of bigfoot wearing a piece of clothing can be excused and written off as anecdotal, the fact there are quantities of such reports universally makes it a whole different matter.    

 

Just my thoughts ... What do you say?