A Quick Question For Those With Personal Experiences

[JDL]

Yeah, you do progress.  Or at least I did.  After my first encounter I couldn't accept any other possibility than that it was some sort of freakish man.  The second convinced me that it had to be something other than a man, though I had no evidence that there was more than one of them.  Upon my third encounter I realized that she was one of "them", though I still had no idea what "they" were.  It allowed me the opportunity to observe and attempt to communicate. The fact that she was female and pregnant held all sorts of implications, mainly that they were a species, and breeding.  Being stalked by three others immediately after that cemented the realization that they had their own community and worked cooperatively.

 

I imagine that someone else might progress through escalating stages of fear and anxiety (as opposed to cautious engagement) if the circumstances were different.

[FarArcher]

I've always said that a man can get used to almost anything - but that takes time, repetition, and resignation.  Which assumes a relatively constant, repetitive condition - and these things are anything but consistent.  My natural tendency is to subordinate my fear and work the problem.  

 

I found the experiences very unsettling - each and every time.  Get down to it - I don't like these things.  Not even a little bit.  Their behaviors are counter-intuitive, and I'd have to likewise become counter-intuitive until counter-intuitive personal behavior became intuitive.  And that would take time.

 

But that's just me.

[JKH]

On 12/2/2016 at 1:14 PM, ioyza said:

Somewhat similar to MIB, I'd become thoroughly convinced by the evidence but thought of an encounter as a rare, near-mythical event, almost unattainable.

...

Now I'm in the "widespread, high population with extreme capabilities" camp.

 

Now that I'm in Chicago, the next step is to figure out the right approach to meeting these BF families that use the Chicago forest preserves.

 

Plussed. My experience is similar to your above statements. Welcome and check out Lake County Bigfoot's threads titled "Urban Bigfoot". He knows quite a bit about the area.

 

2 hours ago, FarArcher said:

These things are anything but consistent. 

Their behaviors are counter-intuitive.

 

These statements are accurate, and describe what IS so unsettling to many. In many ways they're ape-like, but in some others...just different.

 

Don't have time to answer the original question, but maybe later.

Edited December 15, 2016 by JKH

[dlaw]

FarArcher, my Dad always said you could used to anything except a gravel in your shoe.

[FarArcher]

2 hours ago, dlaw said:

FarArcher, my Dad always said you could used to anything except a gravel in your shoe.

 

Your dad was right.

 

Absolutely, positively.

[hiflier]

And that goes for other creatures as well. It why researchers in the field often go back to the same areas- so BF will get used to their presence and hopefully not only tolerate their intrusions but also possibly show themselves. Other than for threat mitigation that is.

[sheri]

To answer your original question FarArcher, it was the realization that I got out of the forest safe because it let me.  The speed of this creature was astounding. No one is getting away from one unless it let's you.

[MIB]

Right, Sheri.  After that you're faced with a question ... do I take my survival and run while the running is good or do I take a chance the big guy will let me go again and return to take another chance.  It's a real personal question, a decision only you can make for you.   I've chosen to go back.   I'm gambling they're truly disinclined to do anything but let me go rather than just waiting 'til I mess up just a little more to step on me.   

[FarArcher]

16 hours ago, sheri said:

To answer your original question FarArcher, it was the realization that I got out of the forest safe because it let me.  The speed of this creature was astounding. No one is getting away from one unless it let's you.

 

Somewhere in time on one of these threads, I'm pretty sure I stated my belief that these things can run down the fastest NFL player in short order.  You noted the same thing I did - they are unbelievable fast - something just looking at them would seem counter-intuitive.  

 

I'd say the one you're aware of is not the one you should fear the most.  These things can 'elect' to move quite quickly - silently - and I have no idea how they do that.  So if one is letting you be aware of their presence - this just may be the 'driver.'  The quiet one will be the one behind or on your flank you're not aware of.

 

Sometimes, I believe, they're "herding" folks in the direction they want them to go - usually to egress the area.  Other times, they're trying to create fear in someone, encouraging them to leave the area on their own.  But I'd bet one won't be allowed to go where they don't want you too.

[Incorrigible1]

Well described, FA. Uncanny speed could answer many instances of perceived unexplained behavior.
 

[SWWASAS]

On 12/15/2016 at 9:38 AM, FarArcher said:

I've always said that a man can get used to almost anything - but that takes time, repetition, and resignation.  Which assumes a relatively constant, repetitive condition - and these things are anything but consistent.  My natural tendency is to subordinate my fear and work the problem.  

 

I found the experiences very unsettling - each and every time.  Get down to it - I don't like these things.  Not even a little bit.  Their behaviors are counter-intuitive, and I'd have to likewise become counter-intuitive until counter-intuitive personal behavior became intuitive.  And that would take time.

 

But that's just me.

I agree to some extent they are counter-intuitive in our expected behavior.   But is lack of expected behavior on their part their problem or ours?   We just do not know them well enough to predict behavior.   My experiences went from starting with peek and withdraw to ending with zapping and trying to drive me out of the woods with playfulness episodes in between.    But one behavior on my part seemed to elicit the same response from different BF because of the geographical separation of the incidents.     Go deep in their territory and in full view of one of them,  urinate.    That elicited the same response (chest slapping) both times.     That indicates at least one behavior on the part of humans that is unacceptable on their part.   I fully expected after the first contacts, like some forum members report, that I would become buddies with that family group.     I was all but promised by certain forum members that if I did not display cameras that would happen.   That did not happen.       In their defense I was hunting them and likely they knew it,  and each encounter got more unsettling for me because their behavior became more unfriendly.   

 

I think you could learn their behavior if you could maintain contact for decades with the same family group.      Logging terminated my association with one group.     Perhaps the lesson from that is get deep into a national forest where logging is pretty much not allowed any more and find a group that will interact.   Then expect it to take decades to learn much at all.    Call it the Jane Goodall approach or whatever.     

 

FarArcher touches on something that is perhaps a hidden danger.   Since we know so little about their daily behavior, it is very likely someone could stumble into something that is totally unacceptable to BF.   .   Young juvenile alone,   a nesting area,  a birthing area,   or just cornering one that has no way out,  might be a situation that triggers violent behavior on their part.    We see that with bears so why expect anything different from BF?    Should you have repeated contact, I would suggest that you enter their area carefully and with some predictability on your part.   If you get in, have contact, and get out without problems,  you probably could repeat that behavior on your part and not expect trouble.   That first contact with any group of them is probably the most dangerous.    The male leader might have had a bad experience with humans and is just waiting for payback.        Perhaps that is where we see humans going missing?    

[MIB]

21 hours ago, FarArcher said:

But I'd bet one won't be allowed to go where they don't want you too.

 

May well be true.   I have to try anyway.   I'm not so concerned about it here in the PacNW.   I would not try it in the SE US.   The attitude is different.

 

MIB

[FarArcher]

2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

I agree to some extent they are counter-intuitive in our expected behavior.   But is lack of expected behavior on their part their problem or ours?   We just do not know them well enough to predict behavior.   My experiences went from starting with peek and withdraw to ending with zapping and trying to drive me out of the woods with playfulness episodes in between.    But one behavior on my part seemed to elicit the same response from different BF because of the geographical separation of the incidents.     Go deep in their territory and in full view of one of them,  urinate.    That elicited the same response (chest slapping) both times.     That indicates at least one behavior on the part of humans that is unacceptable on their part.   I fully expected after the first contacts, like some forum members report, that I would become buddies with that family group.     I was all but promised by certain forum members that if I did not display cameras that would happen.   That did not happen.       In their defense I was hunting them and likely they knew it,  and each encounter got more unsettling for me because their behavior became more unfriendly.   

 

I think you could learn their behavior if you could maintain contact for decades with the same family group.      Logging terminated my association with one group.     Perhaps the lesson from that is get deep into a national forest where logging is pretty much not allowed any more and find a group that will interact.   Then expect it to take decades to learn much at all.    Call it the Jane Goodall approach or whatever.     

 

FarArcher touches on something that is perhaps a hidden danger.   Since we know so little about their daily behavior, it is very likely someone could stumble into something that is totally unacceptable to BF.   .   Young juvenile alone,   a nesting area,  a birthing area,   or just cornering one that has no way out,  might be a situation that triggers violent behavior on their part.    We see that with bears so why expect anything different from BF?    Should you have repeated contact, I would suggest that you enter their area carefully and with some predictability on your part.   If you get in, have contact, and get out without problems,  you probably could repeat that behavior on your part and not expect trouble.   That first contact with any group of them is probably the most dangerous.    The male leader might have had a bad experience with humans and is just waiting for payback.        Perhaps that is where we see humans going missing?    

 

 

Oh, our perception of counter-intuitive behavior is all on us.  We, and I include myself - think/thought we were the apex predators - and that was one very uncomfortable realization.

 

We look at their bulk and assume they'd be clumsy, maybe slow, possibly uncoordinated to a degree - and the opposite is true.  Fast, very coordinated, and have the ability to go into stealth mode at will - much better than we can.  That's a real eye-opener.  Nothing like I would have expected.

 

We look at their primitive appearance, and assume they're dumb.  Just a big, dumb animal.  Just the opposite - very clever, very adapted to their environment, and skilled enough to avoid us at will, although I think some of the youngsters get careless time to time and get spotted.  But even they can cover lots of ground fast, and quickly disappear.

 

We think we can surely see something so large if one is around.  BS.  Masters of camouflage, masters at concealing themselves low and in the shadows.  And don't forget to look up in the big stuff!  

 

And since only one is seen as a general rule - it would be natural to assume they're somewhat loners.  Another big mistake.  We only see the one they wish to show - and just like the ape families, and just like the human families - both are very social creatures.  There are a few exceptions in each, but the bulk like and prefer contact with others, and it helps by sharing the workload/tasks that working together provides.

 

Counter-intuitive to be sure.  But that's our fault.

 

 

[JDL]

One thing they do that we don't think to consider is belly crawl for extended distances to get up on us and watch.  And they don't mind what they're crawling through. 

 

At the lakes where we used to camp in the 70s there was some bird that made a hell of a loud Whoop with a rising pitch toward the end.  Every so often it would call from a very close distance, from the two foot high vegetation along the bank about fifty to thirty feet from us.  Every time I would stand up, walk to the edge of the camp and look for it, wanting to just get a look at the dang thing.  Never saw it over the course of about four years.  It wasn't until after my encounters that I began to put two and two together.

Edited January 2, 2017 by JDL

[SWWASAS]

The first time I heard their whoop I thought it was a bird too.    Some strange owl I had never heard before.    Two were whooping back and forth at each other every 30 seconds or so as they moved towards me.   I thought I would see two crazy owls fly up the creek I was near.   I was not until heard the heavy footfalls that I realized it was something bipedal and very large.    The one nearest me slammed into a crouch when it detected me.    I am guessing they spend quite a bit of time doing crouch or belly crawl mode when humans are present.    8 foot vertical  moving stumps are easier to see than 8 foot crawling ones.