Sasquatch – Researchers conclusions – Taking theory one step further!

In this thread I will use conclusions from the researcher community and adapt my own theories for intelligence, strength, illusiveness, tactics and respect for humans.

To me with all my own research I have done about the subject, I take the Sasquatch existence as already proven. If you are one of the people that only see problems and never solutions, then you might as well stop reading. Evolution has put your genes on the wrong side of the pink bat theory.

When I say the existence of bigfoot is proven to me it`s because of all the physical evidence, multitude of solid witnesses, video recording analysis, audio recording analysis, bone excavation, fur samples, blood samples, bone analysis of recovered deer kill, historical records going back many hundreds of years, and so on.

Without further due I will note some of my theories.

First of all,

INTELLIGENCE

I think the group behind Facebook Findbigfoot had given a lot of solid material and analysis of genealogy to this subject. Their intelligence of their surroundings are presented both in video analysis, video recordings, feces, and by studying their ancestry.

Chimps for example can complete tasks that demand collecting visual information, progress it and complete physical tasks much faster than humans. In dealing with their illusiveness in a later part this also explains how they are able to react and take the appropriate steps not to get caught much of the time – even though there are so many hikers in the woods in our decade. Their social intelligence is gathered from the video recordings and written encounters of them living in clans and families – much like us humans. The tactics of hunting and food security – with intelligence in mind - makes this more than plausible. For us humans it makes coping and thriving easier by dividing our tasks, it will be the same for the Sasquatch in the woods. Social intelligence is also derived from their food offerings in numerous occasions - video, auditory and written documentation of this. Food offerings from humans (exotic fruit and trees on “our” turf) are often returned with rabbit, roots and such. Social intelligence by stone and branch buildings / interaction with humans is also commonly recorded. If social intelligence is present, then why don`t they try to communicate with humans and are so illusive you may ask? Well the answer to this question is rather simple if you see it in their perspective.

For hundreds of years the Sasquatch has been able to watch human progress from a distance rather unnoticed. They see us building houses and cities, riding cars and using heavy machinery cutting down the woods which they live in. They surely have also observed humans hunting large and small game by tools and guns over the years. If you were them and saw a hunter closing in on a deer, then -made a loud bang that made the deer die for you to process it on the spot – what would you think? Magic or intelligence superiority? I would say so. This would make the Sasquatch respect us, even though we`re taking more and more of the land they live on. There are also theories that they use the power lines as roads, this means that we actually make their orientation and ease of moving around more effective. From audio recordings of their communication – both speaking and sound communication – they have the ability to spread this information to other clans of Sasquatch.

If a 7-10 foot – heavy body mass bipedal wanted to kill hikers that intrude on it`s family – it would surely have the means to do so. I think the only reason why this usually doesn`t happen is because they respect us and the “magic” we posses.

The audio recordings of Sasquatch communication – both speaking and sounds are a very clear sign of it`s intelligence being higher than any animal found in the forest beside humans. Still, the Sasquatch only communicates with us through rocks, branches, food offerings and the occasional whistle, howl and woodknock (a case of mistaken identity – we`re fooling it and they know it).

Would you walk up to and have try to communicate with someone you thought had magic powers to kill, ran incredible machinery and cut down your land with ease? I wouldn`t think so, especially if you as a people made a law not to socialize with the “gods”.

ILLUSIVENESS

Being able to climb large trees with ease (altitude), having fur that makes you blend in with nature and lighting, few physical bright spots, generations to move around in the woods and playing with hiding techniques, and intelligence to easily make out visual patterns make them the perfect spy and hunter. They can evade oncoming pedestrians with ease. Their nocturnal vision better than ours with large pupils and dark iris (ancestry and video documentation), something that will also have both positive and negative effects in daylight. This is also derived from their ease of evading people and moving around campsites with people. I think their eyesight adapts to darkness more rapidly than ours – craving almost an hour for our best night vision. They are larger and faster than humans, legs adapted for moving around in the woods with more ease, making them hard to follow but sometimes easier to track due to their weight and large footprint / impact to nature.

STRENGHT

Their strength can be measured primarily by their size and ease of large “tree-snaps”. The strength required to break a 20-30cm tree clean off at 3 to 8 feet height is tremendous. You might think that they use some kind of intelligence to do so, rather than pure strength. Personally I have not seen much study on that field telling me that they use intelligent solutions to do so. Intelligent solutions come to mind, for example: impact (mass displacement over speed / ramming the three from high altitude), weakening of the tree by knocking the break point with rocks and so on.

The pure size of the Sasquatch and similarity to the gorilla also tells us that we`re dealing physiology superior to the human body. Longer muscles, denser, strength from regular hard work often trumps body builder strength – if you compare masses. An individual doing daily hard labor weighing 150 pounds will surely be stronger (in many senses other than 1rpt lifts) than a body builder weighing the same.

A Sasquatch with the strength to break small tree clean off will be able to rip the limbs of a newly killed animal like a rabbit, dog or even a deer. There are few statements, experiences and research that have been recorded of this.

Continues in the next post........

TACTICS

Killing a rabbit would be a combination of agility, speed, practice and intelligence. You would have to either chase down the rabbit, throw a stone and hit it, or find it`s den and pry it out / wait for it to surface.

Killing a deer would involve either precise throwing of a stone, hunting skills (downwind / sneaking up / tracking), social intelligence or communication - teamwork with other clan members (circling it in), agility by chasing it down, and strength or tool use to kill it after having chased it down. In other words, I do believe their social intelligence lets them hunt in packs. Deer kills in bigfoot research has been concluded due to the nature of the kills, bone fragment analysis of teeth marks resembling human/chimp dental structure only larger.

Killing a dog would be tactics of evading. There are no records of dog remains being found as far as I`ve seen. Also, an observant and intelligent Sasquatch will guaranteed have made the connection of the dog being the humans` companion. The dog is not naturally occurring in nature Sasquatches food chain. It is also of predatory nature, their closest ancestor (the wolf) hunts in packs and this makes the dog both an advisory and an animal that wouldn`t taste very good. You would know this if you have ever tasted a predatory animal on all fours. Wolf and bear meat does not exactly leave you wanting more.

Catching fish – there is only one statement I`ve read of a man observing a Sasquatch lying on a branch over the river catching fish in the shadows of the trees over the riverbank.

Like the human I do believe the Sasquatch is an opportunist food wise. It`s physiology making it adaptable to eat raw meat (like the human) and a multiple of plants and roots. Like the human I believe the Sasquatch over the generations have adapted to their surroundings by trial and error. We have tried out edible plants by testing it. Our best known handbook on finding edibles relies on trial en error by touching, wiping on lips, tasting and then swallowing – waiting for a reaction to the plant. The intelligence, agility, strength and evasiveness make it and avid hunter.


CONCLUSION

In conclusion I feel we should show the Sasquatch mutual respect. It is clearly an intelligent creature and it respects us as humans. We share the land with them. Their tactics, numbers, strength, and techniques of evading and hunting make them a formidably advisory. If we go to war against the Sasquatch then no human would ever feel safe in the woods again. A rifle would probably not do you much good. You wouldn`t see the Sasquatch and surely not see the huge rock coming before it hit you in the head. An extremely huge and well planned military action would be needed to hunt down all the Sasquatches in the American woods without great losses.

This is why you should treat this creature with respect – admire it for what it is and it`s character.
I will fill out this thread with audio recordings, pictures of tree snaps, video recordings and so on. If anyone wants to post this for me, then go right ahead – keep it clean and “verified” by good researchers so we don`t ridicule what we admire.

For a good source of information on the subject I refer you to Facebook Findbigfoot. Google it and start on their first wall-posts for the entire progress of their research. They`ve done a good job of documenting, analyzing and informing the public of the Sasquatch.

I look forward to the the pictures and other items...I take issue with the idea that people who do not believe are in some other, "evolutionary pool." Seriously, you do a pre-emptive ad hominem attack and then do not expect the same in return?

What physical evidentiary facts do you have in support of Sasquatch, other than your interpretation of these broken trees? Is there new, updated analysis of any previously unidentified hairs or bones?

The FindBigfoot videos are excellent in that they take things one step further, presenting hypotheses and then revising them when necessary. I too am an avid researcher, and am planning my first trip into the forest as we speak. I think the evidence also points to Sasquatch being real.

When I first started researching I realized that there was much more evidence than most people say there is. There are tons of videos of legitimate Sasquatches, some better than others, but most sharing commonalities in the behavior of the creature.

I found the baby Sasquatch in the tree to be exceptional, and was surprised at the evidence presented on Sasquatch in trees. I would have thought they wouldn't be very good in the trees. I believe now that they grow out of trees as they get older, although adults remain relatively agile if they choose to climb them.

I like this post a lot, and hopefully it will open the eyes of some skeptics, or at least prompt them to do some research on their own. S&F.

The only thing I've actually seen are the trees being broken off above the ground. My Dad and I followed a large animal for a long ways up a mountain once. It would stop and break a smaller tree off about 3 feet-5 feet above the ground every 25 or so feet. No bear can break a tree like that. My Dad was armed with a pick axe but we decided that whatever was deciding to stay just out of our sight, was not worth chasing any further.

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
The FindBigfoot videos are excellent in that they take things one step further, presenting hypotheses and then revising them when necessary. I too am an avid researcher, and am planning my first trip into the forest as we speak. I think the evidence also points to Sasquatch being real.

When I first started researching I realized that there was much more evidence than most people say there is. There are tons of videos of legitimate Sasquatches, some better than others, but most sharing commonalities in the behavior of the creature.

I found the baby Sasquatch in the tree to be exceptional, and was surprised at the evidence presented on Sasquatch in trees. I would have thought they wouldn't be very good in the trees. I believe now that they grow out of trees as they get older, although adults remain relatively agile if they choose to climb them.

I like this post a lot, and hopefully it will open the eyes of some skeptics, or at least prompt them to do some research on their own. S&F.

Do you have any links to these tons of Sasquatch videos? I would really like to take a look...A lot of professional people who are doing research into this have looked at a lot of video and it seems, at least in my experience and research, the one they keep examining the most is the Patterson-Gimlin film, despite its tarnished reputation...None of the others seem to be as definitive or authoritative as this one to merit further analysis...

Yes!
Links,or it didn't happen.
I have always been very intrigued by this"mythical" beast.

I take the existence of Sasquatch, Yeti, etc. as simply different versions of the same species of heretofore uncatalogued primate, if it, in fact, does exist.

Notice that most stories about these creatures seems to have them living in territory that is very sparsely populated, making it possible that we simply haven't had enough interaction yet.

I'm very open-minded, since I see that chalking such a creature up to the same category as the supernatural or aliens is ridiculous.

reply to post by br0ker


The Patterson film is to date the only bit of evidence in my mind that lends any credence to "something out there".
All the other stories and evidence add up to (I don't know) because I wasn't there. I would give sasquatch the sameweight as Leprechauns or Loch Ness, etc., if it were not for this footage. Sciencedom has yet to resolve whether this video is hoax or not. With all modern technology we still can't explain a 7 foot, 400 pound, bi pedal female ( with breasts even) stomping off in the distance:

reply to post by intrptr


That was debunked a while ago. It was nothing more than a short movie of a guy in a costume.

In 2002, Philip Morris of Morris Costumes (a North Carolina-based company offering costumes, props and stage products) claimed that he made a gorilla costume that was used in the Patterson film. Morris says he discussed his role in the hoax privately in the 1980s but first admitted it publicly on August 16, 2002, on Charlotte, North Carolina, radio station WBT-AM. Morris claims he was reluctant to expose the hoax earlier for fear of harming his business: giving away a performer's secrets, he said, would be widely regarded as disreputable.

source

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
The FindBigfoot videos are excellent in that they take things one step further, presenting hypotheses and then revising them when necessary. I too am an avid researcher, and am planning my first trip into the forest as we speak. I think the evidence also points to Sasquatch being real.

When I first started researching I realized that there was much more evidence than most people say there is. There are tons of videos of legitimate Sasquatches, some better than others, but most sharing commonalities in the behavior of the creature.

I found the baby Sasquatch in the tree to be exceptional, and was surprised at the evidence presented on Sasquatch in trees. I would have thought they wouldn't be very good in the trees. I believe now that they grow out of trees as they get older, although adults remain relatively agile if they choose to climb them.

I like this post a lot, and hopefully it will open the eyes of some skeptics, or at least prompt them to do some research on their own. S&F.

just make sure you bring something better than your Hi-Point with............

reply to post by Evolutionsend


Actually, the real verdict on the Patterson-Gimlin video is still out...follow up analysis performed by a National Geographic documentary...

www.bfro.net...

reply to post by jeichelberg


Three people say it's fake, one guy that filmed it says real. I'm going to believe the three people that were each in a position to be involved. I'll admit that he does look oddly built for a simple costume, but that hair looks so fake.

reply to post by Evolutionsend


I can appreciate three people saying it is fake...and I can appreciate your leaning toward that point of view...but the fact remains, it has not been proven to be a hoax, and many scientists have not been so dismissive of the film...many state they can come to no certain conclusion one way or the other...

reply to post by Evolutionsend


Furthermore, there is no corroborating evidence to support the conclusion the three people claiming it was a hoax were in a "position," to be contributors to the hoax...only their testimony...that is all verified by the link to the Wikipedia article you posted....Did you, by chance, look at the NatGeo documentary presenting a scientific analysis of this film? If not, I suggest you do...

reply to post by br0ker


the families involved with the Patterson film confessed it was a hoax, didn't they? Also, the FL skunk ape are believed to be chimpanzees let loose in the wild and their progeny.

Although, there may be an unknown primate still roaming around somewhere; the strongest possibility being the orang pendek of southeast asia. There is even speculation it might be homo floresiensis.

reply to post by jeichelberg


I've watched several documentaries about it. I know that many of the scientists, after being told it was a hoax felt that they had egg on their face.

reply to post by jeichelberg


Well.. first look into pink bat theory.

If you still disagree then maybe you just haven`t done any research on Sasquatch? If you have and still don`t see it then I stand by my words.

Edit:
To answer the rest of you`re questions. This thread is not to prove to anyone that Sasquatch exist. Do your own research, the thorough and you will come to a good conclusion. I / We have already concluded by the research that they exist. The meaning of this thread is to analyze all the data and come to some conclusions of how they act, think and how our common future using the forests will be.

With enough people running around soundblasting and hunting to prove their existence we WILL come to an endpoint where either: Their respect for us might change into hostility, or an endpoint where we actually recognize their existence and set down laws not to chase/hunt/harass or otherwise disturb them. Making them by law something like the bear is today.

reply to post by br0ker


Much as I would like to think Bigfoot exists, I can't see it existing in North America with the number of hunters around in it's habitat. Maybe in the Himalayas, but not in the Lower 48. Someone would have killed one or come across a body of one by now.

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by br0ker

 

Much as I would like to think Bigfoot exists, I can't see it existing in North America with the number of hunters around in it's habitat. Maybe in the Himalayas, but not in the Lower 48. Someone would have killed one or come across a body of one by now.

Who is to say that no hunter has ever shot an bigfoot? There is a million reasons to hide it. The fear of wondering what the hell you actually shot looking almost like a human being number one. There are lots of both hunters and rangers stating that they have encountered Sasquatch, the question is, why should you pull the trigger if you`re hunting something that doesn`t look like a large hairy human?

By the way, what are really the implications of the government saying OK, YES, bigfoot exists. There are lots of them in the forest. This would change realestate, hiking, hunting, timber sector and so on - to the point of no recognition.

There are links with excavations of bigfoot graves on the net, look it up. Other then that, don`t you bury your own? Why shouldn`t they? Not many cemetaries in the forest, but that would probably make it a lot easier.