Is Sasquatch Good Or Evil Or Both?

[Guest Crowlogic]

Simple.  The same bigfoot is either good or evil it all depends on which side of the portal it stepped out of that day.

[SWWASAS]

My thread title could have been better MIB.

 

We don't need to debate the good evil thing, and your points are well taken. We have bigger fish to fry.  

 

Let's rephrase the title to Is Bigfoot Friendly or Dangerous from the Native American experience.  What would you call it?

 

What weird stuff have you heard?  A gal that works for me is a Yurok Indian that is from Yreka on the Klamath River. She had one bigfoot story and maybe she can dig up more.

 

Here is a report from a Klamath Indian that was saved by a bigfoot after he suffered a rattle snake bite. Good story.

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/legends/modoc.htm

 

 

We believe that this book is the first time a Bigfoot research group has stayed on site for an extended period and chronicled their investigation in a book designed for the public. We have no doubt that the research will cause many in the Bigfoot community to take pause and examine our findings closely. Is Bigfoot an anibelieves that bigfoot/sasquatch has strong links to the Native American population and as such can be found near their reservations. We have been told many times that the biped does understand Native American language and as such we are including the below listed map outlining the languages found in North America- Thanks to Wikipedia for supplying the map.

Interesting.   Love the NA stories about sasquatch.      Didn't a recent Finding Bigfoot episode on Mt Shasta discuss the search for the Shasta gold?    That story seems to have some legs.    I bet if we could get BF to cooperate there is a lot hidden out there that they know the locations of.    They probably know the location of every airplane crash that has not been found.   

 

The original post question is similar to asking if a grizzly is good or evil.    They are neither but at the same time are very dangerous.   

Edited May 25, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[hiflier]

Crowlogic, thanks for getting around the Forums and adding so much to these threads

[WSA]

I'd just propose, the idea that Native cultures were helpless victims of Sasquatch violence is laughable. I'd say the far likelier explanation is that Native cultures competed vigorously, and successfully,  with Sasquatch for food and territory, and the genetic selection is still evident in the furtive behavior of their Sasquatch ancestors.  Most Native peoples existed in efficient, capable and well organized militaristic societies. Their cultures were that way for a reason: They had to be.  They had weapons they refined over millennia and trained relentlessly in their use to the point they were employed as second nature.  

 

If you think knowing how to stalk and kill a mastodon, grizzly bear or bull bison might not give you some idea about dealing with a predatory Sasquatch, you'd probably want to rethink that idea. 

 

Credible witnesses have recounted how a skilled Indian bowman could put a following arrow in flight before the first one hit the target. And most often, both would hit the mark. There is a reason why Sasquatch are still not real interested in being too visible, I'd propose.  

[SWWASAS]

Taking on a Mastodon has to have been one of the most extraordinary acts of courage and skill on the part of early Americans to watch.   One would presume they are as intelligent as modern day elephants and were considerably larger.   I would think that other than intelligence, the Mastodon has to have been harder to deal with than a BF.   The flip side of the coin is that unlike a mastodon, BF would likely want to inflict revenge should one of their kind be killed.       Perhaps that is why the NA evolved a leave them alone attitude towards the Sasquatch. 

[georgerm]

I'd just propose, the idea that Native cultures were helpless victims of Sasquatch violence is laughable. I'd say the far likelier explanation is that Native cultures competed vigorously, and successfully,  with Sasquatch for food and territory, and the genetic selection is still evident in the furtive behavior of their Sasquatch ancestors.  Most Native peoples existed in efficient, capable and well organized militaristic societies. Their cultures were that way for a reason: They had to be.  They had weapons they refined over millennia and trained relentlessly in their use to the point they were employed as second nature.  

 

If you think knowing how to stalk and kill a mastodon, grizzly bear or bull bison might not give you some idea about dealing with a predatory Sasquatch, you'd probably want to rethink that idea. 

 

Credible witnesses have recounted how a skilled Indian bowman could put a following arrow in flight before the first one hit the target. And most often, both would hit the mark. There is a reason why Sasquatch are still not real interested in being too visible, I'd propose.  

 

 

The skill Native Americans had with their weapons is undeniable WSA. The animals they needed to kill for food were no easy targets such as bears, bison and mastodons. You points are well taken. However, there are other factors to consider when vengeful bigfoots come into the picture. The Native Americans were not just dealing with an 800 pound animal but one that some consider to be more intelligent and stealthy than humans. Not only that, but BF could easily prey on humans at night since their villages could hardly be considered secure.

 

Now throw in a few bigfoots that have a grudge against the tribe since some juveniles braves shot and wounded some bigfoots for no reason. What do you have? You have a slam dunk that's not laughable but would be horrid from the Native American point of view. Imagine hostile bigfoots lurking around and picking off hunters to eat. Now think of your ten year old child being kidnapped at night and hauled off miles away.

 

Ok, now get ten braves together with arrows and chase some bigfoots up steep mountains and into rock cliffs with none to little chance of finding them. Challenging BFs on their turf with arrows as they throw boulders from cliffs and charge out of the brush would be futile.

 

Over a 12,000 year period it's too bad we don't have the written history of incidents like the one described. 

 

Taking on a Mastodon has to have been one of the most extraordinary acts of courage and skill on the part of early Americans to watch.   One would presume they are as intelligent as modern day elephants and were considerably larger.   I would think that other than intelligence, the Mastodon has to have been harder to deal with than a BF.   The flip side of the coin is that unlike a mastodon, BF would likely want to inflict revenge should one of their kind be killed.       Perhaps that is why the NA evolved a leave them alone attitude towards the Sasquatch. 

 

Hello SWWA and taking on a mastodon or a bigfoot with arrows would be quite a feat. Some consider bigfoots to be human like with language so revenge thinking is realistic. They probably had long memories and waited to inflict damage on unsuspecting Native Americans. I've read several reports of Indian females being kidnapped by bigfoot. This act would help start a war, that could go on for years with acts of violence for years. Some tribes called bigfoot 'forest devil' for a reason that we should not shrug off and minimize.

 

 

Crowlogic, thanks for getting around the Forums and adding so much to these threads

 

He should stay in the paranormal section and discuss how bigfoot may be a hologram and is really nonexistent. He claims bigfoot does not exist so are all the witnesses experiencing a paranormal being like a ghost?  Is  BF an alien that can cloak or disappear and is contrived by higher beings. caw ........ caw ....... caw.... bigfoot is calling you out Crow ...........

 

Hiflier, please don't encourage him to derail this thread and to troll more. We are dealing with a 15 year old mindset, that has studied about bigfoot, and he simply rejects the whole idea which is completely fine.  What is not fine is trolling, derailing, and failing to intelligently make good case and points.  You ignore children or they act up more when given attention.

[Guest WesT]

Please  comment on 39 statements made by Jason.

 

 

i followed the link and read all of Jason's comments. Is it just me or did anyone else notice the contradictions?

[norseman]

Let's boil this down to brass tacks.

We are talking about a supposed 8 ft tall, 800 lbs bipedal ape man. What do we know about other hominids? Homo Sapiens commit cannibalism to this day. Chimps actively hunt and eat other primates. Neanderthals commited cannibalism.

Chances are that Sasquatch could or would eat a Human under the right circumstances. Especially if reports are true that they actively hunt ungulates. We may not be a regular menu item. But in the right circumstance? A lone hiker, a child not being watched, an elderly person who wanders off? Coupled with a failed berry crop or a heavy winter kill of the local Deer population?

I have zero problems envisioning some thing like a Sasquatch utilizing a food source like us if the situation warrants it. Mother nature is a cruel mistress......many of us forget that. If your hungry your going to do what it takes to survive. 800 lbs trumps 180 lbs everytime.

But obviously if we were on the main menu? We would notice. So it must be a unique situation that happens, but not often.

But there is no reason not to follow the boy scout motto while out in the woods, lest we tempt fate. I do not intend to become a pile of poo on the forest floor. Be prepared!

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

More likely to scavenge those that die of misadventure or exposure.

Likely learned over a million years of evolution to avoid predating Homo Sapiens 

as competition with them is what forced him deep into the remote dense rain forests.

An obvious kill would bring the whole human clan down on them and force them into (further) toward extinction.

 

Bigfoot seems to operate by a firm rule of no contact.

 

The only story I found convincing, so far, was a tale of a canoeist who was struck by a boulder on the leg and later died from complications of the injury.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[BigTreeWalker]

I read all 39 of his statements. He could have consolidated it to around 20, he reiterates himself so much. Also this was supposed to be native American research. So why is there some European mythology thrown in? And the pure speculation of turning to stone?

I guess I don't get this idea of painting bigfoot as evil. Evil from who's viewpoint? I always interpreted the NA viewpoint as respectful. As they are with all animals. Evil is a matter of intent not survival. Were those people in the Donner party evil because they canibalized their fellow travelers or just hungry and dying of starvation?

Any large animal can be dangerous and should be treated as such. Respectfully. Does that make it evil? My answer is no.

Edited May 26, 2016 by BigTreeWalker

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I read all 39 of his statements. He could have consolidated it to around 20, he reiterates himself so much. Also this was supposed to be native American research. So why is there some European mythology thrown in? And the pure speculation of turning to stone?

I guess I don't get this idea of painting bigfoot as evil. Evil from who's viewpoint? I always interpreted the NA viewpoint as respectful. As they are with all animals. Evil is a matter of intent not survival. Were those people in the Donner party evil because they canibalized their fellow travelers or just hungry and dying of starvation?

Any large animal can be dangerous and should be treated as such. Respectfully. Does that make it evil? My answer is no.

Inclusion of biblical symbolism means the story was told after first contact with Europeans and illustrates Christian ideas and stories of good and evil. Indians where also considered "fallen" and a dark lost tribe of Israel so I think you see the common denominator here.

 

If you wanted a better idea of what Natives thought historically find early sources from first contact by doing research in archives that cover that subject matter and look for source documents. Often a priest with and interest in anthropological themes and good observational skills. Diaries and reports back to the European backers of the venture such as church archives out of Spain or France might be a good source.

The best way to research

[Guest WesT]

It's not that I can't see humans becoming dinner. If we look at other top predators, who live and hunt side by side competing for the same food resources, we see that a vulnerable lion cub is killed by the rival Hyena, or Cheetah. If any one of the top predators catches another top predator (or their young) in a vulnerable situation, they are killed and eaten. So that part isn't such a stretch when we take a look at how the natural world operates. Things have certainly changed now as we don't rely on the forest to feed us as was the case in the past.

 

Roasted babies?..... want to and can wipe out the humans?..... and yet, they are afraid of us and do everything possible to avoid contact? Well, which is it?  Then my eyes glaze over and I start to get a headache.

[norseman]

Why?

People tend to see things in absolutes. They can be shy and reclusive and still stalk and kill a lone hiker for food. That does not violate any notions we have of them.

The opposite of that is an army of Bigfoots raiding small towns and packing off the inhabitants.

These hypothetical predatory encounters must be a rare thing in order for them to be plausible.

[WSA]

I dunno Georgerm, on many levels I would handicap a paleo Indian with a flint knife and a sinew-backed bow as a favorite over a modern human equipped with a FLIR and a semi-auto.  While I presume a Sasquatch is always going to be the comparative master of the environment, my guess is the Indian counterpart was much, much closer to their skill level than a modern, so-called civilized human could be. I'm doubting a Sasquatch would risk getting maimed or killed if other food was abundant.  I'm not buying this emphasized preference for human flesh either. Protein is protein, and why bother with long pig when a deer doesn't pack a bow or spear? A calorie is a calorie, and the fewer risks and investment in energy to get that calorie, the better, and that is going to be the one any species will prefer.  

[Guest WesT]

Norseman, were you asking me why did it give me a headache? I don't want to go on a rant unless I have to... lol