Violent Bigfoot

[JDL]

The most dangerous thing to a human is another human. We have a spectrum of individuals in our society ranging from the completely altruistic to those who personify evil. There are also situations in which an otherwise benign individual can become homicidal. We all accept this.

Several members of this forum have previously stated that there is also a spectrum of personality among bigfoot, from the benign to the dangerous. Others have observed that an otherwise benign bigfoot may become dangerous under certain situations.

It is most probable that the majority of bigfoot encounters are peaceful. But there is no doubt that some encounters with humans are dangerous or fatal for the bigfoot. It is also hard to believe that some encounters with bigfoot are not dangerous or fatal for the human involved.

There are those who maintain that bigfoot are universally peaceful and pose no threat whatsoever. I do not feel that this is realistic.

So the questions that go through my mind are:

1. What reports indicate that bigfoot have the potential to behave violently toward humans?

2. How credible are these reports?

3. What common elements can we find from reports regarding what prompts violent behavior toward humans by bigfoot?

4. Has anyone ever correlated geographical reports of bigfoot with geographical cases of missing, or predated humans?

I've been fortunate in that the most menacing bigfoot behavior I have ever experienced has been intimidation and stalking. But next time....

[Guest HairyGreek]

I have a question regarding your criteria. To have the size and speed people speak about, they would have to have a pretty easy time breaking and entering if they really wanted (see Honobia –sp?) or catching up/running down a human trying to escape in the woods. Would you consider the report violent if it seemed they were more playing cat and mouse (albeit with a great deal of aggression) or maybe even protecting territory and not following though on what would be perceived as a threat to harm?

[Guest Knuck]

I'd like to know who these "people" are who claim that Sasquatch are completely non violent, well meaning/behaved creatures. I myself have never heard anyone expound that the species as a whole are harmless.

Hairy has a good point though. Many documented reports, from the usual sources, have told of persons being chased from the woods with loud growling and menacing behavior. But in the end, were fully intact when the incident was over.

There has however been some reporting that showed a more "over the edge" behavior. The "Cowman of Copalis Beach" story comes to mind.

I have experienced the "normal" behaviors of two family units of Sasses. I have been shown what a mild temper tantrum was, and I have heard (close range interactions) between family members that can only be described as a mouthy youngster being silenced by a direct physical blow, and a loud growl by the father.

From my long term observances, I have concluded (for myself) that Sasquatch are in fact (I said for myself) a form of people, not wild animals. I have witnessed the curiosity so many have described. I have seen how easy it is to communicate with them. I have seen generosity from them. I see mutual respect every night, as they don't trash my, or neighbors property, nor do they kill pets.But, I do not, for one instant, think that situations couldn't "go south" if the wrong things occured.

Make no mistake, if they wanted us, they could/would have us. A conventional home structure would be no match for a Sas intent on getting in. You certainly couldn't outrun one. They don't refrain from slaughtering us because of our "superior intellect, or strength of firepower". They choose to live along side and tolerate us as they have for thosands of years.

Yes, I'm quite sure there have been hikers, campers, etc. who were objects of violence doled out by some Sasquatch. They may even have been eaten. I have no allusions that some of these beings are just plain bad news, just like human counterparts.

They are that much like us, there are a range of behaviors in them just like us. From extremely good, to the edge of pure evil. Nothing para, or speculative about it. Of coarse this is just my "educated" opinion-Knuck

[Guest Lesmore]

I don't recall reading many, if any reports about BF being unduly violent toward humans.

[JDL]

Knuck,

Everything you've said is completely consistent with what I have experienced as well, though my encounters have been happenstance, rather than the result of a cultivated coexistence.

HairyGreek,

To clarify the description of behaviors as you and Knuck have requested, I would reserve the term violence for interactions in which squatch have conclusively attempted to physically injure, kill, or prey upon a human, or have actually done so. You could also include attempts to physically injure, kill, or prey upon an animal companion of the human in the presence of the human.

Aggression falls short of violence and may include swatting or throwing a human, or the attempt to drive off or herd a human while exhibiting menacing behavior such as tree-breaking, destruction of other objects, thrown objects which nearly miss the human, bluff charges, or threatening vocalizations, etc. Same for animal companions in the human's presence.

Intimidation falls short of aggression and may include the squatch exposing itself with the obvious expectation of causing the human to leave or flee, stalking in such a manner that the human is aware of their presence, or warning vocalizations short of those that could be described as aggressive.

One may also wish to distinguish between unprovoked or provoked examples of violence, aggression, and intimidation.

[JDL]

I don't recall reading many, if any reports about BF being unduly violent toward humans.

There have been several over the years, most no longer available on the net. I personally believe that one site actively culls such reports from the public portion of their database.

[Guest HairyGreek]

I don't recall reading many, if any reports about BF being unduly violent toward humans.

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7547-mean-ol-bigfoot/page__pid__86657#entry86657

Plenty of resources here to look into.

Aggression falls short of violence and may include swatting or throwing a human, or the attempt to drive off or herd a human while exhibiting menacing behavior such as tree-breaking, destruction of other objects, thrown objects which nearly miss the human, bluff charges, or threatening vocalizations, etc. Same for animal companions in the human's presence.

But you would want to hear about this sort of experience in this thread?

Edited September 2, 2011 by HairyGreek

[JDL]

Knuck,

Thinking more on what you've said, I agree that squatch are a "people". As a social species forming small sustainable groups, it would be necessary for their behavior to be basically peaceful, with intragroup displays of aggression reserved for maintenance of order, though an occasional rant by a dominant individual is probably normal.

A squatch living an otherwise peaceful existence would likely exhibit violent, aggressive, or intimidating behavior only when trying to protect itself or its group, when threatened, when starving, or when competing for food.

The hypothetical habitually violent squatch would probably not be able to sustain group relationships, have only "fringe" relationships with the group, and might be described as a rogue.

[JDL]

But you would want to hear about this sort of experience in this thread?

We should probably include examples of aggression and intimidation as well to place behaviors in context and to make a distinction between the categories.

Edited September 2, 2011 by JDL

[Guest HairyGreek]

The hypothetical habitually violent squatch would probably not be able to sustain group relationships, have only "fringe" relationships with the group, and might be described as a rogue.

You know, it is funny you should write this. I will not go into the merits or holes in the Honobia story, but I was challenged to do more research on it by GEARMAN and others. I did so. The incident, while not deadly, reminded me of the "Ghost in the Darkness" story about two rogue male lions. I am speaking of the actual account, not the fictionalized version with Val Kilmer which still happens to be an excellent movie in my opinion.

[JDL]

HG, I think that's a good parallel.

[Guest para ape]

There's only one encounter that I've ever heard of in which the creature harmed a human being.It suposedly took place back in the 19th century.

These entities possess superhuman strength and they could easily kill a human if they wanted to.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Thanks for showing some restraint para. I think you are speaking of the the story Teddy Roosevelt wrote about.

[Guest Boolywooger]

I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the First Nations names for Hairy Folk (HF) include the word cannibal. It's easy from this term to derive 2 things. 1) First Nations people considered the HF to be people (they didn't refer to Grizzlies as cannibals, for instance). 2) The HF at that time in prehistory considered the humans a prey item. It is my theory that also in prehistory the First Nations folks in those areas where the Hairy Folk viewed them as a prey item that they were "no easy meat" and eventually drove the cannibal strains to extinction. But I think the instinctual reaction that most people feel upon their first encounter with the HF is a remnant of that prehistorical era.

In the present age, I believe that predation still does occur by the occasional "sociopath" among the HF, only very, very, very rarely. I don't think any of the accounts that we have recorded as "violent behavior" are accounts of attempted predation, but rather intimidation behavior. I think that virtually 100% of the time the act of predation results in the total disappearance of the human. I also believe that if the predation occurs anywhere near other HF, that the HF that performed the predation is basically signing its own death warrant. I believe that the normal HF will kill the aberrant one on our behalf.

I can't prove any of the above but it is MHO.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Booly, I tend to think it was the arrival of western civ settlers with muskets and such that probably made the Sasquatch population reconsider the food chain. JMO though.