Jump to content

Violent Bigfoot


JDL
 Share

Recommended Posts

I agree with you on that, I'm not up on the fossil record of hominids to know if we coexisted with any other version. I suspect Homo Erectus didn't die out as soon as they think. The fossil record probably isn't complete as far as our line is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The facial structure, eye size and positioning, the body hair, the nocturnal character all ring true. Some of these charactersitics are also similar to bigfoot. I'm not so sure that the interspecies conflict ended as long ago as 30,000 years, though.

B) Further complicating matters is the possible Ketchum mitochondrial DNA finding of 100% human female, which would argue for BF as a newer subspecies tied to both Homo sapien sapiens women and male Homo Neanderthal or Erectus or some other extant anthropoidal cousin; the implication being that BF would naturally be absent from the fossil record since it would not have existed prior to the mitDNA regression period of circa 30k ybp, purportedly occurring in Southern France.

- Dudlow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wudewasa

Although we have nothing but anecdotal evidence of bigfoot/human interactions, there is documented decline of aboriginal groups after exposure to foreign diseases.

This raises a similar issue today when closely related species come into contact with one another: http://www.livescien...great-apes.html

http://www.cell.com/...960982208000171

Germs can be more powerful than projectiles in some cases. I can just imagine a sasquatch telling its youngsters "Always avoid the bullets, but NEVER let the little hairless things sneeze on you!"

Edited by wudewasa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wudewasa

Agreed Art. I took a break from BFF, then came back to find PG mediocrity and paranormal nonsense. Glad I stuck around to discuss this kind of stuff. There are some very well read/researched and intelligent people that frequent this place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Steering Committee
BFF Donor

That's because up until now I hadn't posted in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kronprinz Adam

The most dangerous thing to a human is another human...

HI JDL!! I can compare to chips, they also have the potential of being violent and biting us!! But most of the time they avoid humans or just shake trees and branches as an intimidation (to prevent us reaching their family groups...), they do not predate on us!!! (but we capture them for different purposes and we hurt them!!)

I think Bigfoot has the potential of being violent, (he's also an apex predator), but violent situations are somewhat rare...I would say that humans and sasquatches prefer to avoid each other whenever possible!!! It seems the creature prefers the wilderness, where where there is no human presence, but if forced to move into human territory, he will do it at night!!

For sure, Bigfoot is able to do intimidation on us (breaking trees, throwing rocks) but it is only to say "hello, I'm here, you're not welcome in my place", he could be more agressive if we foolishly ignore there warnings and we approach to their family groups...(same as humans, we protect our kids and we won't have a nice reaction if we find an unindentified stranger in our garten or entering into our house).

I think Bigfoot can consider humans as unpredictable and we can be also dangerous. We can shoot them, capture their babies and take them to a circus, we destroy the forest or we can hurt them with our vehicles!!! (It seems he does not like loud barking dogs either!!)

I think he's careful into avoiding us...but he would be also curious and spy if he can remain hidden.

Greetings.

K. Adam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi K Adam,

Actually, chimps do predate on humans. It's become an increasing problem in Africa where they are known to enter human dwellings to steal infants and children.

A couple of years ago here in the states we had a chimp go nuts, kill one human, attempt to kill another, and feed off of portions of both.

Wudewasa,

I've seen one article in a Native American accounts site that bigfoot were hit harder by European diseases in the 1500s than the Native Americans were. Another states that they were hit pretty hard by the Spanish Flu back in 1917 - 1919.

Edited by JDL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor

( not saying it is or isnt, i simply dont know) but, if the "sacred baby mountain" account previously mentioned ( or something similar) was ever proven to be credible , i wonder, how many "no kill" folks would stick to that principle?

and would the possibility of human "payback" be a motivating factor by some to supress the violent BF reports in order to protect BF from that retaliation?

if it came down to that type of " violent them or us " scenario i'd hope people would be more concerned with self preservation instead of "squatch - huggin'", just my 2 pennies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

timestamp='1315067427[/b]' post='97628']

That's because up until now I hadn't posted in this thread.

I tawt I taw a putty tat.

Incorrigible1, on 02 September 2011 - 05:58 PM, said:

Really? We do? Why is that?

I did! I did taw a putty tat! :D

I'm very surprised and pleased at para's restraint to not answer your questions with the usual response after you set the stage for him to jump in. You seem to be doing better with that lately para and that's good.

it is far more dangerous driving out to your favorite squatchin' spot, than the danger from a squatch attack once you are there.

Dead on pardon the pun. Driving is the most dangerous thing most of us do throughout the day yet we don't even give it a second thought. Everyday that I come home where I'm able to take my shoes off instead of someone at the morgue doing it for me then it is a good day. Too many people are distracted and complacent drivers and it costs way too many lives, often times not their own unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've all seen this one before: Bigfoot Rampage. Has the forum reached a conclusion on this?

B) As I'm sure you know, 'JDL', there are several almost legendary redacted encounter reports similar to the above. But few, in my opinion, pass the sniff test.

Another, also (I believe) at one time found on the 'Bigfoot Encounters' website, involved the California woman who became so hysterical upon suddenly encountering BF that she couldn't stop screaming, whereupon the grossly agitated Big Fellow tore her limb from limb in front of her boyfriend, seemingly just to shut her up. Supposedly the police put the whole thing down as a bear attack and that was the end of that.

Then, there is the report of the BF badly burned in a forest fire who was aided by smoke eaters and veterinarians before being whisked away by the military(?) to an uncertain end.

And, of course, let's not forget the BF terribly injured when struck by a car, which was, again, supposedly spirited away by an unmarked military patrol (again, which just happened to be near by).

That a verifiable witness to these types of events seldom comes forth, even after many years, is a clue as to the improbability of many of these events.

So a good question might be: Was the public more likely to be hoodwinked by the 'authorities' in the past in an effort to suppress the factual existence of BF, or is the public still equally likely to be denied important information today? And now that BF has become a celebrated urban legend of renown, how much longer can the authorities deny his existence? Perhaps these are moot questions in view of the coming Ketchum reports.

- Dudlow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was one of the secondary reasons that I started this thread. If pending events play out optimally, then bigfoot will be publicly acknowledged as an extant species. But that will open up a whole new set of issues such as "Are they dangerous?" and "Did a bigfoot kill and eat my brother while he was hiking?".

There's going to be one heck of a debate and a lot of reaction. Whatever the motivations, there will be more interaction between bigfoot and humans, and there will be more reported interactions, some of it objective, some of it overblown, and some of it purely sensational. I think it is inevitable that there will be a violent result at some future point and that there will also at some point be a documented loss of human life that is considered to be unprovoked.

This will coincide with the public realization that bigfoot are the ultimate lurkers. I don't think it will end prettily. Imagine today's equivalent of a community banding together with pitchforks and torches to chase down and kill the monsters, only replace the pitchforks and torches with current technology. You're not going to get bigfoot to obey laws and you're not going to convince scared people to just let them be when bigfoot turn up near their towns.

The possible use of "discretion" by government in dealing with bigfoot is compelling. I won't call it a coverup, but simply more of a don't ask, don't tell policy. Either they do know about them or they're incompetent. I don't think they're (completely) incompetent, I simply think there's no upside from the government's perspective in disclosing the existence of bigfoot.

Edited by JDL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...