How dangerous is it to be BiGFooting alone?

[SWWASAS]

Well I would agree that bigfoot is mostly benign.     However when someone does blunder into a bigfoot juvenile,  and seems to be a threat,  how do we know that individual doesn't just become one of the missing?   Defending young is almost universal with humans or mammals for that matter.    The fact that well armed and woods savvy hunters do go missing is troublesome to me.    They would be the most threatening human in the woods to bigfoot.    They, as some forum members have disclosed, may have defended themselves against charging bears.    Why would they treat a bigfoot that seemed threatening any different than a bear?    In my opinion the best way to get yourself killed in an interaction with bigfoot is to shoot at it.  Bigfoot are not solitary like male bears.    They are often in twos or threes,   and as I have found out,   one of them is likely behind you.    

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, MIB said:

..........I'm not aware of any credible account coming out of the Pac NW of a bigfoot killing someone because it was pissed off.    That's a mis-characterization of the bigfoot's motivation.    The only seemingly credible accounts I'm aware of are of predation.........

 

Huh. That's new on me, but I certainly won't dispute it at this point. The only report I can think of where a bigfoot killed somebody was the Bauman story told by President Roosevelt, and that appeared to be because the trappers pissed it off by shooting at it in the dark. 

 

There has been fascinating bear attack studies over the past 25 years, especially by Professor Stephen Herrero that has been widely accepted that shows that most black bear attacks on humans tend to be predation, while brown bear attacks on humans tend to be surprise encounters or defense of young, food, or territory (pissed him/her off). If you really think about it, that seems backwards, but it's not.

 

Can you cite some human deaths that may have been a result of sasquatch predation?

[MIB]

Well, without bigfoot proven to exist yet, that would be hard to do in absolute terms, but a couple of the Missing 411 seem suggestive.    Based on the remains found, a couple of the cases from Crater Lake National Park suggest predation.    I would think the Dennis Martin case would be another strong candidate.     Nothing in them suggests territorial behavior.

 

I can think of a couple of territorial .. events .. I've heard about but none were fatalities, not even any injuries unless you consider a need for a change of underwear an "injury."   All were bluff.   Which is pretty much my point.   Bigfoot does not seem to escalate from bluff to action, if there's action, it's deliberate, and the motivation is different.    You don't bluff your cheeseburger, you just kill it and eat it.

 

MIB

[Huntster]

34 minutes ago, MIB said:

.........I can think of a couple of territorial .. events .. I've heard about but none were fatalities, not even any injuries unless you consider a need for a change of underwear an "injury."   All were bluff.   Which is pretty much my point.   Bigfoot does not seem to escalate from bluff to action.........

 

That seems true of gorillas, too. They're big on bluffing and display.

 

.........

You don't bluff your cheeseburger, you just kill it and eat it.

 

I've bluffed a few Egg McMuffins before. Bought 'em in the wee hours on my way out of town, took a bite while on the road, and it was so horrible, I threw it out the window for the ravens. I'm a slow learner; it happened at least twice.

[wiiawiwb]

It is the vanishing of people, particularly hunters who can defend themselves, that has me perplexed. I've read all of the Missing 411 books, seen the two movies, and even very closely followed one case. 

 

The total vanishing in these cases does not appear to be sasquatch related, at least in my opinion. A sasquatch would not also take a rifle/shotgun and thus it would be left behind to be discovered. In some of the hunters cases, nothing was found. Those are the cases that have me a little uneasy. You can address that which you know. You have no idea how to address that which is bafflingly unknown.

[SWWASAS]

There are many reports of bluff charges by BF trying to drive humans out of an area.   So that seems more common than an authentic attack like a bear charge.   Well now that you mention it, a bigfoot is the only predator that is capable of picking up and taking  a firearm.   They have hands.   They are likely very curious about them.  For all we know a rogue BF human predator may have a cash of them.    They, like the cougar seem to use stealth and approach from behind.     If they went after an armed hunter, he likely never heard what got him until it was too late to turn around,  take off the safety and shoot.   I have wondered if the approaching from behind and hitting you with a rock or pine cone is older juvenile practice for something potentially more sinister.      

Edited August 20, 2019 by SWWASAS

[SWWASAS]

11 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

I've bluffed a few Egg McMuffins before. Bought 'em in the wee hours on my way out of town, took a bite while on the road, and it was so horrible, I threw it out the window for the ravens. I'm a slow learner; it happened at least twice.

I used to have to get Egg McMuffins on the way to early morning simulator training just to have something in my stomach.   I cannot even think about eating one now without getting nauseous.  

[MIB]

8 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

It is the vanishing of people, particularly hunters who can defend themselves, that has me perplexed. I've read all of the Missing 411 books, seen the two movies, and even very closely followed one case. 

 

The total vanishing in these cases does not appear to be sasquatch related, at least in my opinion. A sasquatch would not also take a rifle/shotgun and thus it would be left behind to be discovered. In some of the hunters cases, nothing was found. Those are the cases that have me a little uneasy. You can address that which you know. You have no idea how to address that which is bafflingly unknown.

Precisely my position.   This, more than anything else, is why I first contacted David Paulides to find out what he suspected but he wouldn't even offer that much.    My concern is that the truth, whatever it is, is one of those things that "can't be" so our denial is interfering with proper preparation.  

 

Remember Arthur C Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"?   I have a half notion that the same could be said as indistinguishable from interdimensional travel and as indistinguishable from demon activity, just depends on what you are conditioned to assume when confronted with technology so advanced you can't identify it as technology.   All three may, for practical purposes, be one and the same in that we are horribly overmatched by something out there so far beyond us as to be all three.    (That would be enough for gov't to hide from us if they have just enough evidence to know it is true but no way to protect us from it.)

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

 

Remember Arthur C Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"?   I have a half notion that the same could be said as indistinguishable from interdimensional travel and as indistinguishable from demon activity, just depends on what you are conditioned to assume when confronted with technology so advanced you can't identify it as technology.   All three may, for practical purposes, be one and the same in that we are horribly overmatched by something out there so far beyond us as to be all three.    (That would be enough for gov't to hide from us if they have just enough evidence to know it is true but no way to protect us from it.)

 

MIB

A corollary to Clarks third law would be that a sufficiently advanced entity from an advanced civilization would be indistinguishable from a deity when they have human contact.   I think that mankind's written histories are full of such contacts.   That too would be enough for our government to protect us from the truth.   Probably more so in the past than now since religious belief is dwindling in the general population and academia.       I think the head of the Smithsonian in the late 1800s was so afraid of the truth with respect to giant skeletons recovered that he felt it necessary to hide them to protect the populace from questioning their faith.   

[markc]

On 8/17/2019 at 5:17 PM, SWWASAS said:

Ask a rancher that is loosing cattle what is wrong with wolves.   Or ask the guy in Canada that was just dragged out of his tent by a wolf.  

I am not from wolf country and do not know anything about what is going on, but someone told me just a few days ago, that the reason they brought the wolf back was because the moose or elk are eating the young tree samplings, and they are loosing thousands of acres of forest a year, and the wolf keeps them moving so they don't do so much damage to the trees. Is there any truth to this? Personally, I don't think they should have brought them back. I know I don't like sleeping in a tent with wolves all around it at night, haha, maybe that's just me, but i'm sure you country boys do it all the time like its nothing. 

[markc]

On 8/20/2019 at 3:15 PM, MIB said:

  

Remember Arthur C Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"?   I have a half notion that the same could be said as indistinguishable from interdimensional travel and as indistinguishable from demon activity, 

 

MIB

I think more people believe in UFOs than BF, we saw the phoenix lights, so there must be hundreds of thousands of aliens living here on earth, I know this sounds crazy but everyone including the news reported that these ships were miles long and also wide, each ship capable of holding who knows how many aliens. The perfect place for them to hide out would be in our wilderness areas, and in our oceans, and at night time they are able to conceal themselves better.

I think you are much more likely to have an encounter with an alien out in the forest at night than in the city.

 

What gets me is how BF tracks appear in a snow covered pasture or yard, out of no where and then just disappear, like as if he was set down on the ground walked 100 feet and then picked back up again. I know we want to believe BF is a flesh and blood creature, and I believe that he does bleed, and has DNA, but I think there is a lot more to the story than that.

[Huntster]

6 hours ago, markc said:

.........someone told me just a few days ago, that the reason they brought the wolf back was because the moose or elk are eating the young tree samplings, and they are loosing thousands of acres of forest a year, and the wolf keeps them moving so they don't do so much damage to the trees. Is there any truth to this?..........

 

I have no doubt somebody might have used that silliness as a reason why we needed wolves back in the ecosystem, but it's stupid. If there are too many moose/elk/deer, liberalize hunting regs. Humans are WAY more efficient than wolves at killing, and more manageable, too.

 

........

Personally, I don't think they should have brought them back. I know I don't like sleeping in a tent with wolves all around it at night, haha, maybe that's just me, but i'm sure you country boys do it all the time like its nothing. 

 

There's nothing quite like laying in a sleeping bag listening to wolves howl in the night. When you experience that, you know you are in a true wilderness. I've had numerous experiences with wolves, including having one sniffing me inches away from my head through tent canvas. I've never had a problem with them. But if I did, I would have no problem shooting them, either. I think bears and lions are much more dangerous, but will readily admit that if they're in a small pack, a solitary unarmed person could be in deadly trouble.........but why would you be unarmed, anyway?

 

Re-establishing wolves is fine with me, but conflicts with ranchers, wolf haters, livestock, pets, and ungulate populations would simply be part of the program. Simply accept the fact that you're going to have to pay ranchers for lost stock.

 

Or accept the fact that your wilderness is gone forever...........I did. That's why I live here in Alaska.

[norseman]

8 hours ago, markc said:

I am not from wolf country and do not know anything about what is going on, but someone told me just a few days ago, that the reason they brought the wolf back was because the moose or elk are eating the young tree samplings, and they are loosing thousands of acres of forest a year, and the wolf keeps them moving so they don't do so much damage to the trees. Is there any truth to this? Personally, I don't think they should have brought them back. I know I don't like sleeping in a tent with wolves all around it at night, haha, maybe that's just me, but i'm sure you country boys do it all the time like its nothing. 

 

Its true.

 

Those big beautiful meadows in Yellowstone? Will all be gone in a couple of generations.

 

Yanno what else beats back trees and promotes grass growth? Cows and sheep. Not allowed on Park Service but on Forest Service they are. And BLM.

 

Its the backbone of many western states economy.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

........Yanno what else beats back trees and promotes grass growth? Cows and sheep. Not allowed on Park Service but on Forest Service they are. And BLM.

 

Its the backbone of many western states economy.

 

Yeah, but did you ever consider the fact that you're feeding your political and ideological enemies some of the best cuisine on Earth while they send you back restrictions, wolves, taxes, and counterproductive policies? What would happen if you took a small loss for a few years by selling your beef overseas at cut rate prices and forced the urban aristorats to eat their rats instead?

 

I've never eaten wolf, but I have dog and rat. Rat meat sucks. It's stringy, Nasty. Dog is certainly better. But who knows? Maybe the environmentally considerate urban princesses out there might learn to love rat meat if she knows she's saving the planet?

[Catmandoo]

10 hours ago, markc said:

What gets me is how BF tracks appear in a snow covered pasture or yard, out of no where and then just disappear, like as if he was set down on the ground walked 100 feet and then picked back up again

 Have you seen this yourself?

This happens with all animal tracks. Key words from your comment: snow, pasture and yard. I have seen this. A cougar passed by me in close range while I was snow shoeing. I went to the trackway. Cougar tracks, snowshoe hare and deer tracks. They all 'appeared and disappeared' and re-appeared in cycles. A little wind and snow fills in tracks quickly. Air currents are highly variable with eddies, precinct vortices. Tracks get filled in very quickly. I watched the cougar and yet most of its tracks were covered in a matter of minutes. Same can happen with sand.

I do not subscribe to the 'UFO drops off a scouting animal and then picks it up to 'download' the mission' scenario.