Guest Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) Hard to know what they see us as like, rattlesnakes or hornets or something. Individually, you can swat one, or grab it by the tail and crack it against a tree, and individuals might give you a nasty sting or bite, but poke the nest, put your foot in a rattler hole by a stump, and you've got problems. I think they pretty much realise that near civilisation, you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us, but I'm really not too sure that humans who appear to be a ways out, underarmed and unsupported are safe. Edited February 2, 2015 by Flashman2.0
SWWASAS Posted February 2, 2015 BFF Patron Posted February 2, 2015 The Native Americans left them alone until they carried off a woman. Then they would go and try to track them down and get the woman back. That sort of thing is so strong in PNW Native American oral traditions.
Guest Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 I once had a newer high rise security basket weave holster ripped like a banana peel by an angry naked muscle man after beating his girlfriend bloody during his arrest. I never thought it was possible and never it seen it since. It was his attempt to use my weapon on me. My point is either to illustrate incredible strength or wild imagination to do some things one person alleges. A man says his leather horse tact, meaning leather saddle and stirrups and associated leather hardware, was ripped to shreds and his was camp destroyed. If you ever seen a thick sun heat hardened leather saddle you’ll probably shake your head and wonder how does that occur. Date: October 15, 1991 Place: Oklahoma Paraphrased Summary: Horse riding cowboy camping over night was shaken awake by his screaming horse. He smelled and heard something crashing in the woods. Not sticking around to see if it was a hostile charge or a loving caring approach, he mounts and flees leaving everything behind. I interpret that to mean he rode bare back. The next day he returns to find his “camp was destroyed including my saddle which had been ripped to shreds and the tree busted to pieces.†Read the report in its entirety at GCBRO. http://www.gcbro.com/TXcherokee0012.html As a leather worker, and someone who has spent a considerable amount of time around horses and their tack, I'm not shaking my head. Leather qualities can vary greatly. For instance, I have a saddle that is well over a hundred years old. You can tell where it's been patched and mended, new skirt put on etc. Horses, trees, wrecks - they can all take quite a toll on your saddle. But this old saddle, the leather is still good and strong. Sure, it's been torn and laced in some places, but in general it's still in good condition. Now, I bought another saddle a few years ago - it was one of those "too good to pass up" deals, and I should have known better. The leather was of horrible quality, in fact I ripped a stirrup leather taking my horse out of the trailer once. The point is, not all leathers are the same. Add to that, if the cowboy had recently conditioned his saddle, as any self respecting cowboy will do, then it is very possible it had an attractive odor. Given the date and location, I would definitely think black bear.
Guest Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 True, if neglected it could either be so dried out it would practically shatter with any force, or so rotten it could rip like wet tissue.
Bonehead74 Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I'm submitting this with the disclaimer that I haven't been able to listen to it yet since I'm stuck at work, but I thought it might be of interest. Henry May talking about bigfoot and government intervention: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/arcane-radio/e/36733081?autoplay=true
Guest Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 starts getting good about 40 or so minutes in, thanks.
Sunflower Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 However, the location is Texas and I have heard of this report before....it took place in Cherokee County. And yes he rode bareback and got out of there.
Cisco Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 I've always considered Bigfoot to be very dangerous. In my opinion, it stands to reason that any creature with the physical characteristics of Bigfoot, would be extremely dangerous. Why else would they be built in such a manner, if it wasn't to be an apex predator? I imagine, like people or animals, Bigfoot have their own individual temperaments and personalities. I have no doubt that if a Bigfoot were hungry, and a person was alone and unarmed, that person would be seen as prey. However, I also don't think they are blood thirsty killers. Like most predators, they would be calculating and opportunistic. That being said, it's difficult for me to understand or believe that a Bigfoot would deliberately destroy a camp sight, as a form of intimidation. Simply because they spend so much time trying to stay hidden. Any deliberate act, that makes them the center of attention, counters the belief they try to avoid interaction with people.
Guest Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) I've always considered Bigfoot to be very dangerous. In my opinion, it stands to reason that any creature with the physical characteristics of Bigfoot, would be extremely dangerous. Why else would they be built in such a manner, if it wasn't to be an apex predator? I imagine, like people or animals, Bigfoot have their own individual temperaments and personalities. I have no doubt that if a Bigfoot were hungry, and a person was alone and unarmed, that person would be seen as prey. However, I also don't think they are blood thirsty killers. Like most predators, they would be calculating and opportunistic. That being said, it's difficult for me to understand or believe that a Bigfoot would deliberately destroy a camp sight, as a form of intimidation. Simply because they spend so much time trying to stay hidden. Any deliberate act, that makes them the center of attention, counters the belief they try to avoid interaction with people. I’m throwing a wide net, but help me understand this if you can. If you always considered Bigfoot dangerous, how is it that you don’t believe them to be blood thirsty killers? Isn’t that giving voice to two opposing views? If they are dangerous and menacing does it matter if they are blood thirsty and menacing or opportunistic and menacing killers? Is there a difference? - Just Asking .... Edited February 5, 2015 by Gumshoeye
MIB Posted February 5, 2015 Moderator Posted February 5, 2015 I dunno, for sake of argument, **I** am very dangerous. Does that make me a bloodthirsty killer in your eyes? If not, why not? And if not, why do you jump to that conclusion about bigfoot and not about me? What's the difference? - Just asking ... too ... MIB
Bonehead74 Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 MIB is correct. "Dangerous" simply implies the potential capacity to do harm or violence. It does not demand that potential be acted upon. I, too (not unlike many others) am a dangerous man, yet I have not killed another person in cold blood, nor engaged in a physical altercation without justification and provocation. Temperament, the weight of personal responsibility, and moral constraints keep the many dangerous "good" people from becoming a menace. I'd suspect it's similar (at least as far as temperament) in the Bigfoot world. 1
Guest Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 IMO, you might get the same odds as in a "lawless" gangland ghetto, approx 70% "good people" and 30% not.
Bonehead74 Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) Those percentages may (or may not) be correct, but I think it would depend on the bigfoot's level of intelligence and sense of self-preservation. A sufficiently intelligent "bad" bigfoot may be averse to indulging its murderous impulses so as to avoid human retaliation. There are also a number of people who believe that bigfoot diligently police their ranks and "remove" any members who are unstable and prone to compromise the group. Edited February 5, 2015 by Bonehead74
Guest Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Well could be low as 5% bad eggs, but the good folks are not the ones that "hang around on street corners" as it were, so skewing the odds. Or in other words, troublemakers go looking for trouble.
SWWASAS Posted February 6, 2015 BFF Patron Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) I agree with MIB and Bonehead's assessment of dangerous. Perhaps a better word for it is potentially dangerous. Any human of any size or possessing a weapon is potentially dangerous. I think there is good statistical evidence that while BF is potentially very dangerous, it seems to exercise restraint in most cases otherwise humans would be disappearing in far greater numbers in the woods than they are. Whether that is some sort of moral code, the knowledge that human attacks have historically resulted in search parties and armed citizens seeking revenge, or some unknown reason there appears to be some restraint on the part of BF just because of the relatively small numbers of missing people. Those causes for ending up missing, share reasons that include getting lost, injured, hypothermic, or encountering a cougar or bear. For all I know, because of our diet, maybe we simply taste bad. Certainly that does not preclude some injured or sick BF who cannot get food any other way to attack a human. If juveniles are involved, if BF are anything like bears, that could provoke an attack. Most animals will protect their young within their capabilities. Edited February 6, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
Recommended Posts