Guest Boolywooger Posted September 2, 2011 Posted September 2, 2011 I think it was the advent of the clovis points and atlatls and the use of fire. I think the lessons were taught long before Europeans ever reached this continent, also JMO.
Guest Boolywooger Posted September 2, 2011 Posted September 2, 2011 Assuming that the HF and First Nations (FN) peoples migrated together across the Bering Land Bridge, it would be an interesting study to see whether the FN names that include the concept of monsters and/or cannibals occur more in the northwestern regions and less in the southern and eastern regions which would have been the last areas reached in the migration. And if that is the case, could we infer that the HF had learned their lessons prior to the completion of that migration.
Guest HairyGreek Posted September 2, 2011 Posted September 2, 2011 Even more interesting...if Sasquatch turns out to be a peoples and not Gigantoesque were the NA ancestors brought as slave labor? I will stop there. I am way off topic. LOL.
Guest flskunk Posted September 2, 2011 Posted September 2, 2011 I think that it is possible for older biggies to view us as food. Like other predators that are getting old or are wounded, Maby not as fast or able to stalk normal prey. Especialy if they are opportunistic predators/omnivores. JMO
Guest SquatchTrackerMD Posted September 2, 2011 Posted September 2, 2011 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. Unprovable but probably true. If BF is anywhere as smart as we can assume he is, there had to be a learning curve about the arrival of white humans with "firesticks" (to allow a FarSide-esque joke). I think we have to assume that BF can be pretty violent on occasion. After all, given how close to humans BF likely is, and how violent humans and our close cousins (eg Neanderthals) have always been, why would BF be any different?
Guest HairyGreek Posted September 2, 2011 Posted September 2, 2011 Your last sentence makes perfect sense to me.
Guest Posted September 2, 2011 Posted September 2, 2011 I don't think you can draw an analogy strictly to humans. Cats, dogs, and horses all have different personalities in my experience. They respond to you depending on what their previous experience with humans have been such as trying to tame a wild cat or dog, it never works. But if you have Sasquatch that has been in contact with humans, or around humans, since their childhood, you might have a different experience than with a rogue.
Guest sosha Posted September 2, 2011 Posted September 2, 2011 I think that any animal is dangerous and the more intelligent, the more dangerous. In the woods I think we are just cheeseburgers on legs but many predators avoid us because we are not in their "usual" food group, but obviously in some circumstances that can change. I am reading a novel right now called "The Tiger" about a tiger that changes his normal behavoir after being shot by a poacher and having part of his kill stolen by the poacher. The natives in the area (in the Bikin area in Siberia...home to the Amure or Siberian tiger...largest big cat in the world) believe that tigers are very intelligent...some more than others...and this particular tiger after being shot...tracks down the poachers cabin...waits three days for the poacher to return home (all of this is documented and downright scary when you read it) and then kills the poacher and eats him and his dog. It's as if the tiger just decided he was fed up and revenge became his overwhelming prime directive. I have come to realize over the years working with all kinds of animals from Tigers to Monkeys and bears is that you can never ever really predict what an animal might do...sometimes we can and that really requires us to pay attention and become more a part of their world...sometimes we can't and things go horribly wrong. I would say these bigfoot creatures are very intelligent and they learn...like elephants when they've had enough....one day they just are tired of being pushed around....and they **** the consequences. Bigfoots obviously have retreated as much as they can to avoid us....so when we keep showing up in their habitat...I think they get a little irritated. You know how a lot of us go into the woods to just relax and avoid other people and enjoy the silence...and then here come some yahoos with their portable radios and ATVs tearing up the joint and raisin all kinds of noise...how do we feel?LOL BTW...anybody seen the new Planet of the Apes movie? I read that book by Pierre Bolle a long time ago...but I this movie was great because it used all CGI...no live animals and....it is according to many people I have spoken to...a very accurate portrayal of what life is like for lab animals...so..you take and animal like that...with intelligence...chances are they don't want to be in that situation any more than we would...makes ya think....sure does.
Guest Dudlow Posted September 2, 2011 Posted September 2, 2011 While most events on this list of 'Bigfoot Behaviors' are not violent, some are. But the point in posting the list to to provide a collection of varied BF behaviors from the curious to the violent. They seem to be much like us in terms of mood, motivation and response to challenge. - Dudlow http://lawnflowersjerkyandbigfoots.com/bigfootbehavior.aspx
Guest BuzzardEater Posted September 2, 2011 Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) We know from experience that BF is untrackable. We know that they act pretty human, so much so that many think they are a type of human. Yet, we imagine a violent incident in the woods would be discovered. The son of an illustrious Prime Minister of Canada disappears while hiking. Think "Kennedy" and you can imagine what sort of search was undertaken. They didn't bring the body in for years, as it turned out he was washed into a lake by a slide. My point is, that this occoured where there are pro search teams and Government involvement and the greiving family was left with only a theory for years! This was acceptable because it happened in the bush. The location is a giant mitigating factor. Dozens of people go off into the woods every year and get lost. We find a lot of them. A lot are just open files somewhere. If you look at the number of disappearances that occour annually in the US and Canada, you'll see there is a lot of case files. How many of these semi-closed files have an element of wilderness in them?Out of the thousands of possibles that meet this loose criteria, there are bound to be a certain number where "high strangeness" happened. Million to one shots pay off every day! It is unreasonable to think that BFs have never interacted with conventional humans in an adversarial way. Our understanding of them is pretty much nill. Stuff must happen because of this. I am reminded of a story; A BF walks out of the woods with thier hands up, approaching two men. One man shoots it to death. Why? The universal sign of truce is a white flag or hands up. Misunderstanding. The shooter didn't know what he was looking at and felt gunfire was his best option. This sort of accident must happen now and then. I would be surprised if every dude on a horse with a camera survived his encounter. Some BFs must misunderstand some humans and feel thier best option is dismemberment. Whether they hunt or eat humans is open to conjecture. That they have in the past seems reasonable. I do not believe they were defeated by Natives. I'd have heard about that. What is told in my family is that the Sasquatch people were badly affected by small pox. About the time of WWI Spanish Flu affected thier male population very seriously and they almost died out. Regular contact stopped at about that time and they were not seen for many years. I think they are most likely to be found in family groups that persue a semi nomadic life. Abundant food makes human predation unlikely as it would draw attention. This does not account for individuals that have injuries or disease. Mad cow disease is still found on a regular basis in Canada. Rabies is not unknown. Head injuries can lead to changes in mentality. The affected individual's actions would be known by the group. If they destroy evidence how would we know? I think there is a much better chance that missing humans are killed by bears before others should be suspected. Bears do not reason. Biggies, obviously do. Edited September 2, 2011 by BuzzardEater
Incorrigible1 Posted September 2, 2011 Posted September 2, 2011 We know from experience that BF is untrackable. Really? We do? Why is that?
Guest Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 A friend recently investigated a new report in the deep South where a teenage boy was jumped(roughed up) by a juvie squatch while he was walking to the store (very rural and poor area) and a adult squatch appeared and drug the misbehaving juvie squatch off into the woods. Boys clothes were torn up, etc and roughed up kid was in a bit of shock and not talking about it . Grandmother shared story to investgators.
Guest Boolywooger Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 I do not believe they were defeated by Natives. I'd have heard about that. If I'm correct it would have happened so far back in prehistory, I can't imagine that it could still be contained in any oral tradition.
bipedalist Posted September 3, 2011 BFF Patron Posted September 3, 2011 A friend recently investigated a new report in the deep South where a teenage boy was jumped(roughed up) by a juvie squatch while he was walking to the store (very rural and poor area) and a adult squatch appeared and drug the misbehaving juvie squatch off into the woods. Boys clothes were torn up, etc and roughed up kid was in a bit of shock and not talking about it . Grandmother shared story to investgators. So what contact had the target teenage boy had with squatch in the past prior to the incident I wonder? I'm sure there could possibly be much, much more to this story if the boy ever talks.
Guest HairyGreek Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Whether they hunt or eat humans is open to conjecture. Everything you have said is open to conjecture, but I still heard a whole lot of "we knows", " I would have heard"s, and "obviously"s. I am a little confused how you speak so matter-of-fact about things I had no idea were certainties. Would you care to elaborate more? If I'm correct it would have happened so far back in prehistory, I can't imagine that it could still be contained in any oral tradition. I'm reminded of The Pirates of the Carribean here...if there were "no survivors...where'd the stories come from then, I wonder?"
Recommended Posts