Avoiding Human Contact? Or Not?

[Trogluddite]

Those that profess to know more about sassy than most others claim the creature does everything possible to avoid human detection, thus the infrequency with which the creature is seen. In nearly the same breath, these creatures are said to shadow hikers, peep in windows, invade occupied campsites, and otherwise intentionally seek out relatively close human contact. Those behaviors don't sound like a creature that is avoids human detection at all costs. So, which is it? What's the true nature of sassy when it comes to interaction with us Homo sapiens?

MNSkeptic

 

I'm sticking with the "needle in a haystack" theory - its not that they try to avoid humans, its just that there are so few of them that they are not encountered frequently.*  And when they are encountered, there doesn't appear to be great effort on the part of witnesses to overcome the hiding skills of the "ninjas of the forest."^TM

 

I have 580 encounters where the witness(es) saw at least one bigfoot.

 

Does bigfoot travel at night to avoid humans?  Apparently not: 

 

Dawn                           -  24

Day                             - 198

Dusk                            -  34

Night                           - 160

 

The majority of encounters don't happen at night (although 48 of 184 nighttime encounters occurred between 2:00 AM and dawn).

 

Do they make an effort to avoid humans?

 

300 of the witnesses saw a bigfoot that was simply "in transit," or going from point A to point B.  No animals running from it, no animals following it, no humans stalking the bigfoot, no bigfoot stalking the humans.  Rather than being furtive and stealthy, they appear to be indifferent to being seen.   

 

If Bigfoot were avoiding being seen, one would expect it to keep some distance from people, keeping a terrain feature between themselves and the potential witness, and keeping to concealment.  That's not what most people report.

 

Proximity (distance between witness & Bigfoot) 

0 – 10 yards                - 174

W/in 50 yards             - 201

W/in 100 yards           - 153

> 100 yards                 -   39

 

And Bigfoot definitely isn't shy about coming near human habitats - 52 (almost 10%) were seen w/in 25 yards of a building and a total of 141 were encountered w/in 25 yards of a road. 

 

* Excludes encounters by researchers in fixed research areas. 

[BigTreeWalker]

Trogluddite,

Not trying to hide, not furtive or stealthy, indifferent, daytime sightings, not shy; sounds like to me the data supports the idea that they choose when they will be seen.

We can look at this another way. If all those things are true then we should be able to walk out into the woods in high sighting areas and find them just as can be done with other animals. But we all know that's not the case.

But, that's just my opinion.

[JDL]

Perhaps, more accurately, they choose when to be seen and only when they are confident that they are in control of the situation.

 

That said, I have seen one before it knew I was there as it came over a ridge.  By the time it noticed me, I and my brother had a good long look at it and it was a significant ways from any viable cover.  Another time, one was so fascinated by what I was doing (fishing), that it came fully out into the open, probably without thinking it through.

[Trogluddite]

^^

Big Tree, 

 

The only reason I don't fall in line with the "choose when to be seen" route (for chance encounters) is that there is nothing to suggest they know, or care, that they're being seen.  For example, if 3 Bigfoot chasing a deer chase it right under a tree stand, the male is focused on the deer and the presumed female with the young 'un is focused on keeping up with the male.  Many of the road crossing/walking along the road encounters don't suggest that the Bigfoot is particularly aware of the witness, so it doesn't seem like they're "choosing" to give the witness a sighting.

 

Not saying that anything is provable without a radio collar on one of them, but perhaps chance encounters involve a Bigfoot that has some compelling biological reason (rejoining the group, moving to a new food supply, emergency foraging) that makes it prioritize speed and a direct route over sneaking and peeking.  I guess I'm thinking of it in the same vein as deer or bear - it's less a choice and more a coincidence of both the witness and the bigfoot being in a certain location (for chance encounters).   

[BigTreeWalker]

Yes I agree with the chance encounters. If they didn't happen then BF would have to be omniscient. And I don't even want to go there. But I do think walking along a road would be a conscious choice. With all the witnessed interaction with cars you would think that they would know that one will eventually come down the road. As you say I don't see them being fearful in some of the road sightings. Maybe they are secure in their knowledge and abilities in getting out of sight where we are concerned. It may account for their indifference at times.

[SWWASAS]

Having had bigfooters disease (plantar fasciitis) the last few months I think I have some insight to why BF are not often seen walking down a road.  The reason might be the same as for me.     A rocky road hurts my feet in boots.     I can well imagine it would be a lot more comfortable for BF to avoid rocky logging roads walking on bare feet.      Other than hunters, who are off trail probably more than any humans,   most humans hike on trails or roads.    So all a BF normally needs to do is avoid human contact is avoid human trails or roads.   When you factor in a high correlation of BF sightings with hunters, berry pickers, and mushroom gatherers who are frequently off trail,   that would seem to support my theory.    When roads or trails are involved in sightings most often BF are seen walking across rather than along them.   . 

 

There is the other factor that has not been addressed here.     Because of the influence of "Finding Bigfoot"  I would say the majority of researchers really do not expect to see a BF in daylight hours and don't spend a lot of time looking.      While the data previously mentioned by Trogloddite shows that reasoning is not valid.     Report after report mentions arriving in camp, look around a bit,  have dinner, then sit up half the night waiting for something to happen.    Usually nothing does until after the fire is out and everyone is in bed.    No one normally sees anything even though an area might be active.     

Edited November 15, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest]

I would like to propose the "dog crap" argument to illustrate the rigid thinking fallacy inherent in "If they were trying not to be seen then why do people claim to see them." or "They can't be that good at not being seen if people see them" and so on.

 

It goes. Q: Do you try to step in dog crap? A:No Q: Have you ever stepped in dog crap? A: Once or twice... Q:Then your avoidance of dog crap is a lie, you intended to step in it, there is no other logical explanation for the fact that you have stepped in dog crap.

 

In other words crap happens.

[Trogluddite]

I'm almost with you Big Tree, although still stopping a little shy of conscious choice, but that's really (I think) neglibly different from what I'm thinking.  I think the dog doo-doo theory summarizes it well.  Sometimes, Bigfoot is minding his on business on a road that very few people use and, "Ah, dog crap!!" 

[BigTreeWalker]

I agree, **** happens.

[SWWASAS]

Another analogy to the doggie do thing applies to seeing a BF too. If you don't have a dog and are only exposed to stepping in their stuff on a city sidewalk when an irresponsible pet owner does not pick it up, then you are probably right in that you might only step in it a couple of times in your life. But if you have a dog and a yard and every trip into the yard puts you at risk of stepping in it, then you are going to have several incidents a year even though as a pet owner you know how much is out there because you periodically go to pick it up. Similarly someone that rarely gets into the woods is not as likely to have a very rare BF sighting as someone who hunts and spends a lot of time in the woods every year.

[Guest sacripper]

Those that profess to know more about sassy than most others claim the creature does everything possible to avoid human detection, thus the infrequency with which the creature is seen. In nearly the same breath, these creatures are said to shadow hikers, peep in windows, invade occupied campsites, and otherwise intentionally seek out relatively close human contact. Those behaviors don't sound like a creature that is avoids human detection at all costs. So, which is it? What's the true nature of sassy when it comes to interaction with us Homo sapiens?

MNSkeptic

I'm sticking with the "needle in a haystack" theory - its not that they try to avoid humans, its just that there are so few of them that they are not encountered frequently.* And when they are encountered, there doesn't appear to be great effort on the part of witnesses to overcome the hiding skills of the "ninjas of the forest."^TM

I have 580 encounters where the witness(es) saw at least one bigfoot.

Does bigfoot travel at night to avoid humans? Apparently not:

Dawn - 24

Day - 198

Dusk - 34

Night - 160

The majority of encounters don't happen at night (although 48 of 184 nighttime encounters occurred between 2:00 AM and dawn).

Do they make an effort to avoid humans?

300 of the witnesses saw a bigfoot that was simply "in transit," or going from point A to point B. No animals running from it, no animals following it, no humans stalking the bigfoot, no bigfoot stalking the humans. Rather than being furtive and stealthy, they appear to be indifferent to being seen.

If Bigfoot were avoiding being seen, one would expect it to keep some distance from people, keeping a terrain feature between themselves and the potential witness, and keeping to concealment. That's not what most people report.

Proximity (distance between witness & Bigfoot)

0 – 10 yards - 174

W/in 50 yards - 201

W/in 100 yards - 153

> 100 yards - 39

And Bigfoot definitely isn't shy about coming near human habitats - 52 (almost 10%) were seen w/in 25 yards of a building and a total of 141 were encountered w/in 25 yards of a road.

* Excludes encounters by researchers in fixed research areas.

I think it has been discussed before, but bears repeating. If I am standing at the edge of a meadow, with forest behind and tall grass and bushes in front, and it is daylight, I can look around and see maybe 6-10 acres or so clearly enough to see a BF. If I stay until pitch dark, that area of BF visibility shrinks to maybe 1/4 acre to at max an acre IF it is moonlit. These numbers of course vary a great deal with the location, but you get my point.

I'm no statistician, but the number of nightime versus daytime reported sightings needs to be weighted by a "people can't see in the dark very well" factor.

I think BF are MUCH more active at night, we just can't see them very well is all.

Fwiw,

Unclesac

[SWWASAS]

Sacripper: Agreed but only in the case where a significant number of humans are present in the daytime. In those high human traffic areas BF would likely use their presumed advantage to see at night to move around as they need to. But areas I sometimes go, and when I have had daytime BF contact, often I never see another human all day long. If other humans are around, I do not ever recall having any suspected contact. Either BF have a good idea of who is in the area and can usually avoid them in the daytimes, or they have some arbitrary standard as to how many humans have to be around to avoid day activity and wait until we leave later in the day. I really don't think they avoid an area that does not have humans present when there is no reason to do so. Hunter gatherers have to keep at it to have enough food for the long term. Unlike them, we telegraph our presence in remote areas when we drive in. Those that have contact camping in remote areas report that usually nothing happens the first night. I suspect BF are viewing from a distance and doing some sort of threat assessment on the first night. Then the second or third nights near camp activity seems to ramp up after humans go to bed. The most activity is reported by those that camp frequently in the same areas and seem to have some sort of limited trust thing going on with the local BF tribe.

[Guest]

The amateur naturalist might observe that even rabbits have a sense of when humans will be around and when they won't. One will find that in areas of higher human activity, rabbits seem to be crepuscular, inside our city we even have crypto-nocturnal rabbits, but find yourself a real quiet spot of country, and there they are, grazing and scampering all times of day.

[SWWASAS]

I have a few rabbits that hang around in my yard day or night. I can get within a few feet of them without them running off. So they must not see me as a threat. The rabbits in my yard that do not look familiar are mostly around at night and day or night will run off when they see me. I cannot approach them. Not sure how all that relates to BF other than it points out that some animals who are not particularly intelligent can figure out what is a threat and what is not. Up the intelligence and the animal has to be able to read humans a lot better. I think BF can read us very well.

[Trogluddite]

Sac, 

 

Don't disagree - even if humans are awake in many areas, they are indoors focusing on kids, TV, computers and not keeping a 24/7 lookout on their house's perimeter.  I am not sure, however, how one would make any adjustments to reflect that.