Guest Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 (edited) Thanks for the comment Enkidu, I assure you there were no intentional mistakes in the thread title. I did add the or “caring acts,†sort of (tongue in cheek) to appease a few here on this forum but all was intended to generate straight forward discussion. Edited December 29, 2014 by Gumshoeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagniAesir Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) I think the consensus is that it’s all a bunch bluff charging, but is it hostile or loving? Maybe it is self preservationIf you believe that sasquatch exist If you believe that sasquatch are intelligent (ape level or higher) If you believe that aboriginal stories are based on reality Why do many of those aboriginal stories talk about cannibalistic or highly aggressive sasquatch (assuming we are right in thinking these are sasquatch) What may have changed? Technology There is not a large mammal on this planet that man cannot destroy if we put our mind to it. Maybe in the past before firearms came to this continent, sasquatch could hunt people on a regular basis However if sasquatch were routinely attacking and/or killing people or even our livestock today, they would have our full attention and extinction would be their future No if enough of them have been introduced to firearms in the past, then they would have learned of our response A bluff charge or pursuit in most cases would get the required result without the risks Edited January 16, 2015 by MagniAesir 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I think the consensus is that it’s all a bunch bluff charging, but is it hostile or loving? Would you please explain how you think its "loving?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodslore Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) Isn't a bluff charge a show of aggression in itself. The animal is taking on a dominant stance or action to either scare the target into a fight or leave. It is showing it's power in a sense to be the one with the power, to show greater power. Isn't the act by an ape when it rips up ground or shakes trees at another called a threat display? IT's saying I can do this do you want me to do this to you? I maybe wrong here. I'd say it is not simply the happy forest giant and its not playing tag with us. I'd say it is more warning.Maybe there are some cases that are the animal taking on a protective aspect toward humans. It has been seen in other animals. One case the little boy who feel into the Gorilla habitat at the zoo and the female watched over him. So yes maybe it is an action of compassion or protection in some cases. However I would put it more on the idea that it is a case of the animal wanting us out of its territory. That it wants us gone. The idea that well then why wouldn't it just kill us, why wait until we are gone to go into our camps and what not. Bears walk right into camps with people there. They take what they want and off they go. Look at people fishing in areas such as Alaska. Bears take fish right off the line. You can see this in various videos just google or Youtube it. Now yes I mention bears and yes Sasquatch is not a bear but think of this both are animals in nature. Both are incredibly powerful animals. Both have shocking interactions with humans. Both are seen as the boogie man of the woods. Not saying they are the same thing but often what we know abut one animal we try to use it when dealing with or trying to understand another IMO. I am no expert in any way just putting forward an idea and thought. Edited January 17, 2015 by Woodslore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Trog I am not presuming to speak for Gumshoe, but I've read his words several times and cannot figure out where he states he believes the charge is a "loving" event. Looks to me like he is offering a couple of options and trying to determine the purpose, not stating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Northfork - see post 12, above. He asks whether the bluff charge is loving. I'm simply asking Gumshoe to how he's using that term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) Maybe it is self preservation If you believe that sasquatch exist If you believe that sasquatch are intelligent (ape level or higher) If you believe that aboriginal stories are based on reality Why do many of those aboriginal stories talk about cannibalistic or highly aggressive sasquatch (assuming we are right in thinking these are sasquatch) What may have changed? Technology There is not a large mammal on this planet that man cannot destroy if we put our mind to it. Maybe in the past before firearms came to this continent, sasquatch could hunt people on a regular basis However if sasquatch were routinely attacking and/or killing people or even our livestock today, they would have our full attention and extinction would be their future No if enough of them have been introduced to firearms in the past, then they would have learned of our response A bluff charge or pursuit in most cases would get the required result without the risks Camping, 3 Missing, LEO, Other Governmental, Found Alive 1951 June 7 Sangre De Cristo Mountains, New Mexico Larry McGee, (7) Janet McGee, (5) Steven Cross, (3) Two families from Santa Fe drove to Santa Fe Ski Basin to spend a day picnicking and enjoying the mountain air. As the families were settling into the picnic area, the three kids –Larry McGee, Janet McGee and Steven Cross were running through the area and apparently enjoying the high altitude and cooler air. Near noon the families realized that hey hadn’t seen the kids in a while and started to search for them. The search progressively got more frantic as time passed and the children still could not be found. At 3:00 p.m. the families exhausted all possibilities as to where the children could be, so they went to the ski area and called law enforcement. The morning of June 8 arrived with the children still missing. Twenty-eight hours after the kids disappeared, armed forces personnel were over 3 ½ miles from the location where the kids were last seen when they saw a head poke out among a series od downed logs. Once the children were brought back to the search to the headquarters, search personnel and their parents questioned them. Larry also made a fascinating remark about why the kids may have been hesitant to immediately make themselves known to searchers: “They seen some of the searchers, he said, but were afraid to yell because they thought they were big gorillas.†Missing 411, Western United States and Canada, David Paulides, p191-192 Northfork, thanks that's exactly what was meant ..... Edited January 17, 2015 by Gumshoeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Considering the latest research on chimpanzee's, they will kill an intruder in their territory, another chimpanzee intruder that is, the research didn't address human interference. I would think that a little more thought might go into the bluff charges. If you kill or hurt a human then that would attract other humans to the area that would be looking for the missing person or the thing that hurt the person. It would be a leap of faith to assume they know most of us don't believe they exist but trial and error might indicate that scaring the human away doesn't result in as much human activity in the area afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Would you please explain how you think its "loving?" This type of a "loving approach" is likely to give the recipient a heart attack! "Loving, humm.. This behavior is probably Not Loving at all.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Based on what we suspect, have read, and in the cases where our members have shared personal encounters, I don't think there is enough evidence to lay a blanket statement over this question and say what their intent is every time. I can say this; were a BF chasing me I would hope I was well armed or dang close to safety. I wouldn't want to also be testing the who is faster question, I think we do have enough info for that. I think it has been demonstrated that their intellect is substantial, and that they could be chasing, charging or otherwise acting in a threatening manner for a variety of reasons. For me, each individual situation would require an individual evaluation, which would be based on the totality of the circumstances of the encounter. Whatever the reason for their "bluff" charging, unless you depart rapidly, you could discover that it was *not* a "bluff charge. Any time a Sasquatch charges you, I sincerely recommend *leaving* the area *rapidly*. That way, whether it was a bluff or a kill you charge, you will survive it, hopefully. Always wear good and well fitting running shoes. Be sure to leave your plans and where you will be doing your research with others so if you don't return people will know where to start looking:) Hope to continue seeing you around... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Sounds comedic Guy, but the question asked is whether you feel those specific actions can be construed as hostile or not. Forget about the setting, if you encountered the same behavior from somebody you didn't know in your own locale, would you find the behavior bizarre? Is it hostile or just a friendly act of welcoming? You know sort of like a getting to know you greeting .... Now back in the wilderness setting, consider something that large, ugly and unnaturally not right charging you. They (it) doesn't know you, you have no connection to it, is it possible this thing is thinking one thing and you're thinking another. Is it possible that our rationale about their intentions is totally wrong? Nope, You would be fully rational and correct in shooting anything that was attacking and/or charging towards you. Just be sure to put it down so it won't get up and chase you. While rapidly departing keep an eye out for any relatives who take issue with you shooting their family member or friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Are they bluffing? All this discussion of Bigfoot charges being hostile or caring would be put to rest pretty quickly if more people would stand their ground and see for themselves, if they are just “Bluff Charges, which I am inclined to agree, why people flee? If as most seem to believe right here on this forum agree, the charges are bluff, why don’t we hear of more people reporting someone (anyone) standing fast, thinking, rationalizing, instead of heading for the door like there’s no tomorrow? Surely if we believe it’s all about false aggression and people know this why don’t they charge at the bluffing aggressor? I mean after all, it’s all about deceiving and intimidating anyways right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagniAesir Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Camping, 3 Missing, LEO, Other Governmental, Found Alive 1951 June 7 Sangre De Cristo Mountains, New Mexico Larry McGee, (7) Janet McGee, (5) Steven Cross, (3) Two families from Santa Fe drove to Santa Fe Ski Basin to spend a day picnicking and enjoying the mountain air. As the families were settling into the picnic area, the three kids –Larry McGee, Janet McGee and Steven Cross were running through the area and apparently enjoying the high altitude and cooler air. Near noon the families realized that hey hadn’t seen the kids in a while and started to search for them. The search progressively got more frantic as time passed and the children still could not be found. At 3:00 p.m. the families exhausted all possibilities as to where the children could be, so they went to the ski area and called law enforcement. The morning of June 8 arrived with the children still missing. Twenty-eight hours after the kids disappeared, armed forces personnel were over 3 ½ miles from the location where the kids were last seen when they saw a head poke out among a series od downed logs. Once the children were brought back to the search to the headquarters, search personnel and their parents questioned them. Larry also made a fascinating remark about why the kids may have been hesitant to immediately make themselves known to searchers: “They seen some of the searchers, he said, but were afraid to yell because they thought they were big gorillas.†Missing 411, Western United States and Canada, David Paulides, p191-192 Northfork, thanks that's exactly what was meant ..... What is your pointYou quoted me and then posted a story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Considering the latest research on chimpanzee's, they will kill an intruder in their territory, another chimpanzee intruder that is, the research didn't address human interference. I would think that a little more thought might go into the bluff charges. If you kill or hurt a human then that would attract other humans to the area that would be looking for the missing person or the thing that hurt the person. It would be a leap of faith to assume they know most of us don't believe they exist but trial and error might indicate that scaring the human away doesn't result in as much human activity in the area afterwards. Divergent1, I think you make some sound points here. I believe as well some good amount of thought, balancing of risk/reward, capabilities I wouldn't ascribe to the average animal, certainly go on in these instances. As for that leap of faith? I don't find it as preposterous as some may. I think of their various ways of 'warning' a person or persons from their areas. Some seem to require a little vocalizations, others require rocks, others outright charges and chasing. So, by that I'd say they are gauging us as individuals. The stoner hippie in the woods or an armed huntsman? They make their plan accordingly. At least that's something I gather from the anecdotal evidence. Most carrying weapons seem to be the ones to meet a more aggressive Sasquatch while others of a less potentially dangerous mindset or ability get the less hostile 'threats' and while still escorted from their area, it's seem a bit more passive in it's nature. Are they bluffing? All this discussion of Bigfoot charges being hostile or caring would be put to rest pretty quickly if more people would stand their ground and see for themselves, if they are just “Bluff Charges, which I am inclined to agree, why people flee? If as most seem to believe right here on this forum agree, the charges are bluff, why don’t we hear of more people reporting someone (anyone) standing fast, thinking, rationalizing, instead of heading for the door like there’s no tomorrow? Surely if we believe it’s all about false aggression and people know this why don’t they charge at the bluffing aggressor? I mean after all, it’s all about deceiving and intimidating anyways right? Gumshoe I may be incorrect in this but I want to say I have read some of the TWAC reports from the last year or two and think they have had what they are calling bluff charges, where they did indeed stand their ground. I won't swear to it but I do believe it was from their site or perhaps even one of Bipto's threads here on their work. I'll try and find exactly where and what report I am reffering to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 ^^^^ Thanks Jasperlamarcrab – I can believe that, I think they’re a better man than me though…. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts