Missing 411

[Wooly Booger]

21 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

It would be interesting to dig for any reports of hairy giants dating from colonial times.  The earliest report I have been able to find was from the 1790s, and mentioned a family of hairy wildmen seen bathing in the Great Lakes area by settlers.  I have heard that there were accounts given by Spanish missionaries in California as early as the 17th century.  But I have yet to come across any.

Those reports would prove interesting if they reveal that the behavior of these creatures towards man was different around the time firearms first entered North America.  It would be interesting to see if predatory behavior was documented in those days. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[BeansBaxter78]

16 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

What would a young child's reference point be to even mention a "bear"?  Why not a dog or even a deer which is something the child would have actually seen in his/her short life experience?

Don't quote me on this,  because I can't cite a source, but I'm pretty sure I saw somewhere that a family member had mentioned the kid was really into a kid's show on Netflix that had a bear as the main character.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

1 hour ago, Wooly Booger said:

Those reports would prove interesting if they reveal that the behavior of these creatures towards man was different around the time firearms first entered North America.  It would be interesting to see if predatory behavior was documented in those days. 

If you read old newspaper accounts of 'wildmen', there are stories of armed groups of men engaging or going after these creatures.  

 

So, we go from man-eating stealers of children with the Native Americans to a kind of state of limited conflict as settlers of European descent begin to spread across the land...to our modern day elusive, shy, and rarely seen Sasquatch.

 

It sounds very much like a very gifted apex predator was able to run roughshod over a population with bows, arrows, and spears...but, then came to realize that the firearms of the new inhabitants leveled the playing field too much for their comfort.

 

[Wooly Booger]

45 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

If you read old newspaper accounts of 'wildmen', there are stories of armed groups of men engaging or going after these creatures.  

 

So, we go from man-eating stealers of children with the Native Americans to a kind of state of limited conflict as settlers of European descent begin to spread across the land...to our modern day elusive, shy, and rarely seen Sasquatch.

 

It sounds very much like a very gifted apex predator was able to run roughshod over a population with bows, arrows, and spears...but, then came to realize that the firearms of the new inhabitants leveled the playing field too much for their comfort.

 

A few of the more modern reports of aggressive hairy giants come from the more remote areas of North America such as Alaska or the so called Headless Valley of Yukon Territory. I wonder if perhaps the Sasquatches living in those parts are unfamiliar with modern man and their firearms and thus engage in the same predatory behavior towards humans that their ancestors in other areas of the continent most likely did in centuries past. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[BlackRockBigfoot]

13 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

A few of the more modern reports of aggressive hairy giants come from the more remote areas of North America such as Alaska or the so called Headless Valley of Yukon Territory. I wonder if perhaps the Sasquatches living in those parts are unfamiliar with modern man and their firearms and thus engage in the same predatory behavior towards humans that their ancestors in other areas of the continent most likely did. 

Or, the population density and remoteness of the area makes them feel a bit more emboldened.  You would think that if they have encountered humans at all in Alaska that they would be familiar with firearms.

[wiiawiwb]

All a sasquatch would need is to see is the little hairless ones use their boomsticks to kill an elk 300 yards away.  One could only imagine what a sasquatch would think when it see a little hairless one drop a 1,200lb coastal brown in its tracks with a boomstick. Uh oh!

 

No doubt my strategy would be to move farther away and have night time the preferred venue to interact with the little skinny ones.

[Wooly Booger]

3 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Or, the population density and remoteness of the area makes them feel a bit more emboldened.  You would think that if they have encountered humans at all in Alaska that they would be familiar with firearms.

That probably has alot to do with aggressive encounters as well. I seem to recall on Sasquatch Chronicles I have heard that there may be as many as four sub-species of Sasquatch like creatures inhabiting North America. The sub-arctic variety was claimed to be the largest, most aggressive, and most carnivorous variety. 

 

Not sure how much stock to place in these claims of multiple sub species, but it is certainly a possibility. 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

33 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

That probably has alot to do with aggressive encounters as well. I seem to recall on Sasquatch Chronicles I have heard that there may be as many as four sub-species of Sasquatch like creatures inhabiting North America. The sub-arctic variety was claimed to be the largest, most aggressive, and most carnivorous variety. 

 

Not sure how much stock to place in these claims of multiple sub species, but it is certainly a possibility. 

Look around on the web and I think that they are up to something like 10 variants now.  Types 1 through 4 with crazy offshoots... a type that looks like primitive man, a type with a baboon face, one that looks like the Neanderthal from Them and Us.

 

I can understand slight variations from region to region.  I have said it on here before, but what we seem to be dealing with in this part of the country doesn't have the sheer mass as what they report in the Pacific Northwest.  Could be Bergmann's Rule in effect, I guess.

 

But, unless there are several different species that people are seeing and identifying as Bigfoot...I just don't see all of these descriptions being variations of the same species.

[Wooly Booger]

16 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Look around on the web and I think that they are up to something like 10 variants now.  Types 1 through 4 with crazy offshoots... a type that looks like primitive man, a type with a baboon face, one that looks like the Neanderthal from Them and Us.

 

I can understand slight variations from region to region.  I have said it on here before, but what we seem to be dealing with in this part of the country doesn't have the sheer mass as what they report in the Pacific Northwest.  Could be Bergmann's Rule in effect, I guess.

 

But, unless there are several different species that people are seeing and identifying as Bigfoot...I just don't see all of these descriptions being variations of the same species.

Agreed. I think Bergman's Rule explains this perfectly. Look at the size of Alaskan Brown Bears and compare them to the inland grizzlies for instance. For the four original proposed types in North America, I think they are likely variants of the same species. There range probably extends into Siberia and northern Russia which is what Krantz seemed to believe. 

 

The other types reported from Central Asia and other parts of the world, if they exist, are probably something else entirely. But I haven't done enough research into cryptids outside of Sasquatch to have an informed opinion. 

Edited March 17, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[Huntster]

9 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

Predation.  Muchalat Harry seemed to have the impression that he was there to be eaten.  I recall reading that he mentioned seeing the area littered with bones. 

 

That may have been the case with Muchalat Harry, but it doesn't appear that way with Ostman.

 

7 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

........That equation changed when Europeans showed up with firearms.   At that point in time any interaction with humans increased the potential for the BF getting killed outright or gravely wounded and dying later.........

 

I also strongly suspect that the smallpox that Europeans brought along also had a huge effect on them. Smallpox is estimated to have wiped out 90% of aboriginal American homo sapiens. 

[Twist]

I would wonder though, if early man had enough enough interaction with them involving firearms to change the BF way of life in such a dramatic fashion then why do we not have more substantial proof of their existence?   We were enough of an impact to change their lifestyle but they still remain a legend to us?   Doesn’t add up IMO.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

35 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I also strongly suspect that the smallpox that Europeans brought along also had a huge effect on them. Smallpox is estimated to have wiped out 90% of aboriginal American homo sapiens. 

I have wondered about that myself.  If they were susceptible to smallpox and other European-born illnesses, they could have been almost wiped out as well.

[NatFoot]

I don't know how to explain the variances in what is reported....but let's step back a second.

 

We believe there's an unrecognized ape/hominid roaming the forests of NA and Asia. It's been undiscovered, officially, and there's enough of them to breed.

 

Now, take that comment - as wild as it sounds - and say - "No, there's actually four different types of these hominids - maybe even more. We just haven't gotten lucky enough to really prove they're physical animals living in our forests. It's because they all are able to possess culture to pass down the rule to be afraid of humans."

 

Mountain lions are, same with black bears, mostly afraid of humans and will slip away. There are still young ones, old ones and just plain stupid ones, who walk around neighborhoods or hide up under porches.

 

I say that as a believer....but we seem to make some pretty wild claims/assumptions to explain some things away that are just not that easy.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

2 hours ago, NatFoot said:

I don't know how to explain the variances in what is reported....but let's step back a second.

 

We believe there's an unrecognized ape/hominid roaming the forests of NA and Asia. It's been undiscovered, officially, and there's enough of them to breed.

 

Now, take that comment - as wild as it sounds - and say - "No, there's actually four different types of these hominids - maybe even more. We just haven't gotten lucky enough to really prove they're physical animals living in our forests. It's because they all are able to possess culture to pass down the rule to be afraid of humans."

 

Mountain lions are, same with black bears, mostly afraid of humans and will slip away. There are still young ones, old ones and just plain stupid ones, who walk around neighborhoods or hide up under porches.

 

I say that as a believer....but we seem to make some pretty wild claims/assumptions to explain some things away that are just not that easy.

That's what doesn't make sense.

 

Even if they have culture and language...even if it is engrained in every single one of them from birth to avoid humans and to never be seen....it seems like there would be that one stupid, rebellious, or unhealthy one who would get hit by a tractor trailer in broad daylight while trying to cross the road.  

 

I can maybe see accepting the possibility of different types, given the sometimes wildly different reports.  "It looked like a caveman.  It looked like a monkey in the face.  It had a muzzle.". But, even that doesn't really make sense to me.  

 

A lot of this is exactly what you called it... assumptions.  People come up with an idea and then just present it as fact.  Other people take it and run with it...and the next thing you know it is part of Sasquatch lore and is unchallengeable truth.  

 

People either don't like to say "I just don't know." or they have to be seen as an expert in a field where almost nothing (if anything) is actually proven.   

[Wooly Booger]

Personally, I am not 100% certain that there are multiple sub-species of hairy bipedal primates in North America. Nothing is certain in this field. At least not yet. However, many researchers conclude that the variations in reported sightings with different clusters of sightings sharing similar characteristics (smaller size and fewer toes in the South for instance) suggest the existence of one or more sub species. Of course I am not in a position to say unequivocally. But look at how many variants are out there in known species. Brown Bears for instance. The possibility of regional variations is not something that should be overlooked.