Multiple Animal Sightings - Does It Mean Anything?

[Guest]

What is the greatest number of multiple animal sightings that you have read about or had personal encounter with? In the nearly 3,000 cases I personally read, I found approximately 140 separate cases where multiple animals were reported in each encounter.

 

The greatest group number reported at any one time was seven creatures who were spotted together.

 

I may be wrong but I think Coonbo once spoke of an instance where they came upon a large group creatures moving in a group. Any ideas, discussions or explanations would be greatly appreciated.  Movement in pairs seems to be the overwhelming norm with groupings of three followed closely behind.

[georgerm]

The Vancouver Island Indian that was kidnapped by BF reported over 10 bigfoots that held him captive until he finally escaped by canoe.

Can't remember his name but Peter Burns wrote up the report.

[Guest]

Coonbo spoke of encountering what he thought was 12 or more in boykin springs te,xas

[Guest]

Thanks George and IASquatch, I thought I remembered something Coonbo mentioning something about a large troop of creatures on the move but didn’t recall exactly how many. Ten or twelve beasts in a group would a formidable sight and extremely intimidating anyway you look at it.  Sort of reminds you of the Planet of the Apes doesn’t it?

[guyzonthropus]

Wasn't there that report of a man being kidnapped by one and taken to what became a large gathering of at least 20 (if i'm recalling .org correctly...)where after examining him for some time, they became disinterested in him, thereby enabling his escape? Presuming the event actually occurred, it may well indicate the actual number of individuals within the local/family group ..(or troop depending on what you view them to be) in one spot not expecting one of the guys to pick up a pink on his way home...

In regards to less extraordinary sightings, such as the fleeting glimpse of one or just a few, certainly that could well be the extent of their numbers in the immediate area should they be locals. However, if they are part of a transitory group moving to an alternate region, following the herds or the seasonal plant based foods, one might well see the logic in keeping the group somewhat dispersed in case one or two of them are spotted, preventing their actual numbers from being known which is a definite strategic advantage.

In light of their capacity for stealth, coupled with their reputed speed and agility, a loose grouping would allow for quick and effective evasion by most of the group, resulting in sightings of one to three individuals being most common, despite there being quite a few more within the actual group.

Amongst the social predators one finds far more sophisticated communication allowing .cooperative

[MIB]

The Vancouver Island Indian that was kidnapped by BF reported over 10 bigfoots that held him captive until he finally escaped by canoe.

Can't remember his name but Peter Burns wrote up the report.

 

You are probably thinking of Muchalat Harry. 

 

MIB

[Guest thermalman]

There was also Albert Ostman.

Edited December 2, 2014 by thermalman

[Guest]

Welcome aboard guyzonthropus, and thanks for the interesting post.  Can we call you guy for short? 

 

Hello and good morning MIB and Thermalman.  

 

I would like to hear something from BobbyO on this question because I think he has a wide breadth of information on transitory movement of creatures. This would be right his alley and could add something to the discussion that we could all learn something from. So BobbO, if your out there and you can respond to at leisure please do sir.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I've always wondered if the idea of solitary sasquatch was incorrect, but we have to go where the evidence suggests. I was not aware that there were a large number of sightings comprising multiple sasquatch, although it should be stated that the number of solitary sasquatch reports outweigh these others. I think that is significant, although there are multiple explanations for such data. I've always fallen back on the "sasquatch are solitary animals" explanation to account for the sighting data, but perhaps I was wrong. For all we know they could just split up for most of the day, and then regroup at a certain time of day. And to be honest it would make much more sense for sasquatch to form a social structure of some sort, because all other primates do this. I am not aware of a single primate species that are solitary. Obviously they reproduce, meaning that a male and female must have some type of interaction. That should be the holy grail for those attempting to capture sasquatch on video by the way. You show me a scientist who wouldn't want to see that, and I'll show you a liar, lol.

 

So to answer your question, "does it mean anything," I definitely think so. A definitive answer would likely even allow us to eliminate explanations for other sasquatch characteristics as well, seeing as how everything a sasquatch does is somehow related to everything else, just like all animals. I am aware that many of the reports of multiple sasquatch involve what appears to be a male, female, and children. That is different from a homogeneous group of males or females, and is different from a group comprising both sexes. If they only formed reproductive relationships then it would have implications for their social structure in my opinion. Now if there are swarms of sasquatch, or billows of bigfoot, which are my two new names to describe their groups, they must be highly social like other primates. If that is the case, and they are still in extremely primitive stages of development, that unfortunately gives little hope for them being highly intelligent. It would suggest to me that they are only as intelligent as other non-human primates, and maybe a little bit more, but nowhere near us humans.

Edited December 3, 2014 by JiggyPotamus

[BobbyO]

There's 72 reports of multiple creatures in the SSR so far Continent wide, with 37 of them from WA State which makes up 16% of Class A Sightings in the State.

[georgerm]

You are probably thinking of Muchalat Harry.

 

MIB

 

 

Thanks MIB, that was the name of the fellow. He thought they were going to eat him and found the opportunity to escape. He paddled his canoe all night to get back and was nearly dead tired. After that he stayed in the village and gave up trapping..........................no wonder.

[Celtic Raider]

I've always wondered if the idea of solitary sasquatch was incorrect, but we have to go where the evidence suggests. I was not aware that there were a large number of sightings comprising multiple sasquatch, although it should be stated that the number of solitary sasquatch reports outweigh these others. I think that is significant, although there are multiple explanations for such data. I've always fallen back on the "sasquatch are solitary animals" explanation to account for the sighting data, but perhaps I was wrong. For all we know they could just split up for most of the day, and then regroup at a certain time of day. And to be honest it would make much more sense for sasquatch to form a social structure of some sort, because all other primates do this. I am not aware of a single primate species that are solitary. Obviously they reproduce, meaning that a male and female must have some type of interaction. That should be the holy grail for those attempting to capture sasquatch on video by the way. You show me a scientist who wouldn't want to see that, and I'll show you a liar, lol.

 

Male Orangutans tend to live quite solitary existances when they mature, I don't believe that Orangutans generally live in large family groups but they do interact with other transient Orangs.

 

You would think that if the Sasquatch or Bigfoot species is very cautious and shy of interaction with humans they would be unlikely to gather in large numbers near humans so lone sightings near humanised areas and maybe greater number sightings the more out into the wilderness would be what you'd expect to find I would think.

[frap10]

I've always wondered if the idea of solitary sasquatch was incorrect, but we have to go where the evidence suggests. I was not aware that there were a large number of sightings comprising multiple sasquatch, although it should be stated that the number of solitary sasquatch reports outweigh these others. I think that is significant, although there are multiple explanations for such data. I've always fallen back on the "sasquatch are solitary animals" explanation to account for the sighting data, but perhaps I was wrong. For all we know they could just split up for most of the day, and then regroup at a certain time of day. And to be honest it would make much more sense for sasquatch to form a social structure of some sort, because all other primates do this. I am not aware of a single primate species that are solitary. Obviously they reproduce, meaning that a male and female must have some type of interaction. That should be the holy grail for those attempting to capture sasquatch on video by the way. You show me a scientist who wouldn't want to see that, and I'll show you a liar, lol.

 

So to answer your question, "does it mean anything," I definitely think so. A definitive answer would likely even allow us to eliminate explanations for other sasquatch characteristics as well, seeing as how everything a sasquatch does is somehow related to everything else, just like all animals. I am aware that many of the reports of multiple sasquatch involve what appears to be a male, female, and children. That is different from a homogeneous group of males or females, and is different from a group comprising both sexes. If they only formed reproductive relationships then it would have implications for their social structure in my opinion. Now if there are swarms of sasquatch, or billows of bigfoot, which are my two new names to describe their groups, they must be highly social like other primates. If that is the case, and they are still in extremely primitive stages of development, that unfortunately gives little hope for them being highly intelligent. It would suggest to me that they are only as intelligent as other non-human primates, and maybe a little bit more, but nowhere near us humans.

 

"Swarms of sasquatch" or "Billows of Bigfoot"...  That was great Jiggy.

 

Different animal groups have their own terminology so why not the big guy.  "Murder of Crows", Pod of Whales" and "Glaring of Cats" so what would be a good one for him?

[Guest]

Thermalman, the original man who took ostmans report was Rene Dahinden, and according to a close friend of Renes, will jevning, rene believed ostman to be lying, towards the end of his life.

[Guest]

Jiggy thanks for the insight, always right on.

 

BobbyO  I figured that would be covered in the SSR, 72 multiple sightings doesn’t like a lot but there are more there that haven’t been read as of yet. The Pacific Northwest seems to be ideal habitat for a living breeding animal.

 

Frap10 Very funny, I like that.

 

Celtic Raider Welcome to the thread!

 

IASquatch thank you for clearing that up.