Full Version: Confrontations Between Bigfoot
Are Bigfoot territorial, and if so, has anyone ever witnessed confrontations between two? Most likely males? How large of a group do they travel in? Do they tolerate others of the same species, or do they travel alone???
Good questions.I would think that they are most likely solitary creatures and aoid of any social structure.If they tended to travel in "family" groups,I think there would be a lot more evidence of their existence given the greater amount of tracks,feces,etc. that would be left behind.
Also,having listened to most of the more popular calls on the net,I think the "hooting" calls that are the most recorded are territorial in nature saying "this is my turf".In the animal world,it's the males that are mostly responsible for claiming a territory and marking it somehow.Within that territory,females may or may not live there,depending on how "fertile" the given male is that holds a particular plot of land.Sas may mark there territory in multiple ways,such as urine,calls,bark scrapings,breaking limbs,ways we don't even know about yet,etc.
Taking this to another level.I'd be curious to see how a male bigfoot would treat an infant sired by another male.I'd be interested to know if they would be threatened by it enough to kill it and try to father an infant of their own blood or if they would protect it.
Also,having listened to most of the more popular calls on the net,I think the "hooting" calls that are the most recorded are territorial in nature saying "this is my turf".In the animal world,it's the males that are mostly responsible for claiming a territory and marking it somehow.Within that territory,females may or may not live there,depending on how "fertile" the given male is that holds a particular plot of land.Sas may mark there territory in multiple ways,such as urine,calls,bark scrapings,breaking limbs,ways we don't even know about yet,etc.
Taking this to another level.I'd be curious to see how a male bigfoot would treat an infant sired by another male.I'd be interested to know if they would be threatened by it enough to kill it and try to father an infant of their own blood or if they would protect it.
That sounds logical Stinkfoot! 
Grover Krantz wrote that he thought Sasquatch had a social structure in which successful males would have a small harem of females, and other males would rove around looking for new females or perhaps to displace an old or weaker male with a harem. The successful males, and pretty much all the females, would occupy the best territory, which usually meant the most remote regions, while the wandering males were the ones most often sighted by humans, as they would often get to the edges of human occupied land in their search for love and companionship 
It's not proven, but it makes sense. When more than one sasquatch is sighted, it is most likely by someone who has wandered into an area occupied by a male and his harem.
At least, that's what I think.
-robo
It's not proven, but it makes sense. When more than one sasquatch is sighted, it is most likely by someone who has wandered into an area occupied by a male and his harem.
At least, that's what I think.
-robo
On the AYR website there was a report of a fight between two Yowies. The witness described it as being "a very brutal fight".
I don't know what the name of this report is, or when it happened. I read it a long time ago.
I don't know what the name of this report is, or when it happened. I read it a long time ago.
Only problem with that line of thought is the population we are probably working with.In small populations,inbreeding becomes a huge problem to genetic defects.We are seeing this in the cat kingdom where infants are becoming dominant males but breeding with sisters,cousins,etc.There's not enough new blood,and as there are bound to be genetic defects,they start to surface more and more.Eventually,an increasing amount of the offspring pass on those deffects and that it becomes a huge factor to the survival of the species.Look at what happened in Russisa with one of the last Czar families.They were hemophiliacs and because of the because of the resulting inter-family marriages,the disease became common place.
I would be more inclined to think that females pick and choose who they mate with so that the strongest genes survive.That is the nature of natural selecion,and that theory is evident in every known species we see.
I would be more inclined to think that females pick and choose who they mate with so that the strongest genes survive.That is the nature of natural selecion,and that theory is evident in every known species we see.
Little buggers... go to Maine! 
Bring em on!It'll save me having to fly out west to see them 
I dont know about there social behavior, but had a rock throwing incident a while back that involved at least two animals. I was panning gold in a small stream, my wife and her girlfriend went 1/4 mile downstream rock hounding. The first rock I didnt pay much attention to, thought it just rolled off the ridge, second one got my attention, the third one I saw coming through the air. I went back to the truck for my pistol and bino's. When I got to the truck the girls were already there, looking scared and said something had thrown rocks at them and was thrashing around in the bushs. We left because they were spooked. I didnt even think BF until the next day when I came back and found one set of tracks along the stream. Since rocks were being thrown 1/4 mile apart at the same time there were either two animals involved or he's got one heck of a throwing arm.
QUOTE(Track Record #32 @ pp. 9-10, "Mike Stevenson report, 1968 Copper Mtn. area near Brewster WA")
... We came around the corner and there they were. Two Bigfeet in a brawl-for-all, Bigfoot battle.
[The big one (11 feet high!) killed the smaller one and began to devour his guts. After this long (full-page) report, editor Ray Crowe cited one other case he'd heard of.]
[The big one (11 feet high!) killed the smaller one and began to devour his guts. After this long (full-page) report, editor Ray Crowe cited one other case he'd heard of.]
Anywhere you could find that story online?
Unfortunately TR #32 isn't online that I'm aware of,
there are some back issue however, at this link:
IBS Track Record back issues
Hey Roger, wanna share some of that issue?
It actually sounds like bear activity. Grizzlies will kill cubs belonging
to another male and eat them. Sorta hard to mistake a grizz for a
squatch tho
there are some back issue however, at this link:
IBS Track Record back issues
Hey Roger, wanna share some of that issue?
It actually sounds like bear activity. Grizzlies will kill cubs belonging
to another male and eat them. Sorta hard to mistake a grizz for a
squatch tho
I just checked the IBS site and only 1/3 of TR issues are posted (not including #32). It'll be great when they're all online. And I hope that other NLs, and defunct NLs will be added. The problem is that the stories seem a little hard to swallow, plus they're rather long, plus it's hard to predict what members are interested in (or not). I've been surprised in the past. Anyway, here it is; it's an interview by M.S. of two witnesses:
To subscribe to Track Record (and all other NLs!), click here for my thread "5 Newsletters--Subscription Info."
You know, if people were making up all these BF stories, there'd be a lot more King-Kong tales like these. Also, fakers would probably try to make BF behave more like other apes, to increase believability. So there'd be more pairs seen, more children, more females, more family groups, more chest-thumping, more gibbering, more tree-climbing, more knuckle-walking, more mutual grooming, more feces-throwing, and more occasions when they were found sleeping or just sitting around. (Hey, it's an insight, maybe!)
QUOTE(Track Record #32 @ pp. 9-10, "Mike Stevenson report, 1968 Copper Mtn. area near Brewster WA (T29N R22E)")
I was on leave from the army, with my brother-in-law, and we decided to take a walk, so we went to the Copper Mtn. area. As we started to go on our hike, Steven went around a small bend in the path that we were walking up to the mountain. He stopped on the side of the path to get some air. "Holy sh*t and tarnation ... come and see this," he said. I got up from the ground to see what all the excitement was. Steven came running back to get me ... Steven was about 100 yards ahead of me when he yelled at me to come running up there. "Oh my God, you won't believe me ... you got to see this yourself." I said to him, "This had better be good, what you're yelling about, or your ass is dead meat." We came around the corner and there they were. Two Bigfeet in a brawl-for-all, Bigfoot battle. I stopped and thought to myself, all the time up there we kept hearing a crackling noise, like wood breaking, and hearing animal screams or roars, or something like that, a noise I never heard before, and Steven thought so too (never heard before). I didn't think much about it until I saw the two Bigfeet fighting ... there were two of them of different sizes.
"Can you describe what they looked like?"
"The big one was huge, it stood like 11 or 12 feet at least, it was a brown color with short hair or fur, or whatever you'd like to call it. It had grey tips on the hair. It was definitely big." "His face was black in color, and its chest was sort of hairy, but not really." "I didn't get a real good look, really, they were moving around so fast, rolling on the ground. There was dirt in the air, but I did note that the big one had light-colored soles on his feet." "He had no hair on the palms of its hands, all clean. He had great strength, he threw a large log at the other Bigfoot, the log shattered when it hit the ground it was so rotten." "The two Bigfeet were fighting all over this area near a tree line, they rolled all over the ground, clawing and punching at one another, throwing dirt at each other." "It was all-out war, it was like Bigfoot hand-to-hand fighting, or combat."
"The other Bigfoot was a bit smaller than the brown one, it was red-brown in color and had long shaggy hair. It was about seven foot tall, a lot smaller than the big one." "The little one put up one hell of a fight, its hands had no hair on its palms just like the other one, the big one that is."
"Then the little one tripped on a root or something on the ground, he hit the ground so fast it was unreal. The big one jumped on top of the little one, he grabbed a large rock and smashed the small one's skull." "It was a sound I'll never forget, like a ber-ack type sound or something like that."
"The little Bigfoot was dead or was doing a good opposum trick, then the big Bigfoot stood up and waving its hand in the air it gave out one hell of a yell, man it cut right through ya', then threw the rock, not knowing we were watching all the happenings. The rock came hurling at us, we didn't know if it saw us or not." "Steven was all freaked out, begging to leave." "I said OK, I was scared too, we got up then we turned for no real reason, just in time to see the Bigfoot thrust his hand into the abdomen of the dead Bigfoot, ripping out two big handfuls of guts."
"Steven saw that and started to 'chuck' right there ... Steven had enough of this, we started to move out of view of the Bigfoot, I looked back to make sure that it wasn't following us, as I looked back I saw the Bigfoot eating the guts greedily. Steven looked too ... that just made him 'chuck' more as we ran to get out of there. When we got to the car Steven had barf all over him."
========
Editor [Ray Crowe] comment. Michael Stevenson, due to the nature of the previous report, was going to dump it ... everybody knows Bigfeet don't fight! I persuaded him to file it regardless of our not having a previous precedent for this activity. Mainly, I'm wondering how the witness would have come up with the tale of two completely different 'types' of Bigfoot fighting? If making up the tale, two of the same critters would have appeared more reasonable.
Actually, I do have a record of two BF fighting over deer entrails in Klamath Co., OR. Another in the Hunter/Dahinden book, Sasquatch (p. 103, 1975 paperback ed.), actually relates to a 1947 Vancouver, BC tale of an 8-foot slim, tapering shoulders creature leading on a tether, hands tied, another broad 6-foot creature. At any rate then, Michael's report is on paper ... let's wait and see.
"Can you describe what they looked like?"
"The big one was huge, it stood like 11 or 12 feet at least, it was a brown color with short hair or fur, or whatever you'd like to call it. It had grey tips on the hair. It was definitely big." "His face was black in color, and its chest was sort of hairy, but not really." "I didn't get a real good look, really, they were moving around so fast, rolling on the ground. There was dirt in the air, but I did note that the big one had light-colored soles on his feet." "He had no hair on the palms of its hands, all clean. He had great strength, he threw a large log at the other Bigfoot, the log shattered when it hit the ground it was so rotten." "The two Bigfeet were fighting all over this area near a tree line, they rolled all over the ground, clawing and punching at one another, throwing dirt at each other." "It was all-out war, it was like Bigfoot hand-to-hand fighting, or combat."
"The other Bigfoot was a bit smaller than the brown one, it was red-brown in color and had long shaggy hair. It was about seven foot tall, a lot smaller than the big one." "The little one put up one hell of a fight, its hands had no hair on its palms just like the other one, the big one that is."
"Then the little one tripped on a root or something on the ground, he hit the ground so fast it was unreal. The big one jumped on top of the little one, he grabbed a large rock and smashed the small one's skull." "It was a sound I'll never forget, like a ber-ack type sound or something like that."
"The little Bigfoot was dead or was doing a good opposum trick, then the big Bigfoot stood up and waving its hand in the air it gave out one hell of a yell, man it cut right through ya', then threw the rock, not knowing we were watching all the happenings. The rock came hurling at us, we didn't know if it saw us or not." "Steven was all freaked out, begging to leave." "I said OK, I was scared too, we got up then we turned for no real reason, just in time to see the Bigfoot thrust his hand into the abdomen of the dead Bigfoot, ripping out two big handfuls of guts."
"Steven saw that and started to 'chuck' right there ... Steven had enough of this, we started to move out of view of the Bigfoot, I looked back to make sure that it wasn't following us, as I looked back I saw the Bigfoot eating the guts greedily. Steven looked too ... that just made him 'chuck' more as we ran to get out of there. When we got to the car Steven had barf all over him."
========
Editor [Ray Crowe] comment. Michael Stevenson, due to the nature of the previous report, was going to dump it ... everybody knows Bigfeet don't fight! I persuaded him to file it regardless of our not having a previous precedent for this activity. Mainly, I'm wondering how the witness would have come up with the tale of two completely different 'types' of Bigfoot fighting? If making up the tale, two of the same critters would have appeared more reasonable.
Actually, I do have a record of two BF fighting over deer entrails in Klamath Co., OR. Another in the Hunter/Dahinden book, Sasquatch (p. 103, 1975 paperback ed.), actually relates to a 1947 Vancouver, BC tale of an 8-foot slim, tapering shoulders creature leading on a tether, hands tied, another broad 6-foot creature. At any rate then, Michael's report is on paper ... let's wait and see.
To subscribe to Track Record (and all other NLs!), click here for my thread "5 Newsletters--Subscription Info."
You know, if people were making up all these BF stories, there'd be a lot more King-Kong tales like these. Also, fakers would probably try to make BF behave more like other apes, to increase believability. So there'd be more pairs seen, more children, more females, more family groups, more chest-thumping, more gibbering, more tree-climbing, more knuckle-walking, more mutual grooming, more feces-throwing, and more occasions when they were found sleeping or just sitting around. (Hey, it's an insight, maybe!)
I can't imagine this sort of confrontation happenning without Vince McMahon being involved somewhere along the line !
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Nov 26 2003, 09:40 PM)
So there'd be more pairs seen, more children, more females, more family groups, more chest-thumping, more gibbering, more tree-climbing, more knuckle-walking, more mutual grooming, more feces-throwing, and more occasions when they were found sleeping or just sitting around. (Hey, it's an insight, maybe!)
Sounds like what you see at K-mart..
I can't imagine that two animals of one species would be doing that. I wonder if it is made up.
QUOTE
Sounds like what you see at K-mart..
Jim!!!!!
Ain't buying it. With only 100 yards separating them and Stephen "ralphing" all over himself? Regurgitation is NOT a silent act. There is a lot of noise associated with it, both voluntary and involuntary. The Squatch didn't hear it? And if I was that Squatch, and the wind direction was just right, I would have been joining Stephen for sure.
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Nov 26 2003, 08:40 PM)
You know, if people were making up all these BF stories, there'd be a lot more King-Kong tales like these.
What makes you think people are not making up these stories? ...
Here we have a Bigfoot body. Its out there dead but did anyone ever go back to look for the bones? Nope. They never do. Why? Well you figure it out.
For every 10 (or maybe much more) stories you hear .... maybe one is real, the rest are either misidentifications or outright lies.
Holy s**t and Tarnation!
You're right that the failure to go back for the bones flags this as suspicious, along with the uniqueness of the tale, and the lack of high presumptive credibility of the witnesses. (As young males, they're the most suspect group. And they don't have jobs that connote high "respectability.") These are among the reasons (besides length) I was reluctant to post this tale.
But your high estimate of invalidity is hard to justify. Some of the most experienced field investigators don't make estimates that are nearly as high. For instance, John Green estimated half his informants were trustworthy. (Similarly, before he set up his BF hotline, Peter Byrne estimated 25% to 50% of the data could be in error--see Track Record #23, p. 18.) I think 50% is a good, conservative estimate to use as a base figure. The rest Green had problems with, for one reason or another. My guess is that half the problematic witnesses were actually telling the truth, they just didn't sound credible, or they didn't mentally process what they saw well. Of course, it's sound rhetorical strategy to purify the pool of witnesses (even at the cost of excluding some valid reports), to avoid the embarrassment to "the case for BF" of a witness's recanting, or turning up arrested for DUI, etc.
The percentage of non-believable callers to a Bigfoot hotline would be very high, as would the percentage to an Internet sightings database. But interviewing and investigation can filter out the large majority of such submissions, according to the operators of such sites. (Something scoftics like Radford don't mention when quoting high hoaxing estimates by site operators.)
I think misidentifications due to strange sounds may be fairly common (e.g., "It sounded bipedal"), but I don't think there are many visual misidentifications, except when there were very fleeting glimpses. I think most misidentifications tend in the opposite direction: people refuse to believe what they've seen, and assert it was a bear. (This is plainly evident in multi-witness sightings.)
If there were a lot of phony stories being accepted into books and databases, we'd hear a lot of crowing (or deathbed "confessions") by successful tall-tale-tellers after the fact, boasting of how they'd fooled the experts and authors and interviewers. They'd happily call the scoftics, to get publicity for their tale. Local newspapers would gladly trumpet their recantations. The media eat up such stories; as Henry Bauer says, "the 'news value' of anomalistics lies in its absurdities." But such revelations have been rare.
One of the pieces of "soft" evidence (the type that's unjustly denigrated) I like is the way field researchers characterize many witnesses as "shaken" by their experience. That's hard to fake. Also, the character of most witnesses interviewed in the field is so ordinary (non-pranksterish) that it adds credibility to what they say. Here is the summary of remarks by one journalist:
But your high estimate of invalidity is hard to justify. Some of the most experienced field investigators don't make estimates that are nearly as high. For instance, John Green estimated half his informants were trustworthy. (Similarly, before he set up his BF hotline, Peter Byrne estimated 25% to 50% of the data could be in error--see Track Record #23, p. 18.) I think 50% is a good, conservative estimate to use as a base figure. The rest Green had problems with, for one reason or another. My guess is that half the problematic witnesses were actually telling the truth, they just didn't sound credible, or they didn't mentally process what they saw well. Of course, it's sound rhetorical strategy to purify the pool of witnesses (even at the cost of excluding some valid reports), to avoid the embarrassment to "the case for BF" of a witness's recanting, or turning up arrested for DUI, etc.
The percentage of non-believable callers to a Bigfoot hotline would be very high, as would the percentage to an Internet sightings database. But interviewing and investigation can filter out the large majority of such submissions, according to the operators of such sites. (Something scoftics like Radford don't mention when quoting high hoaxing estimates by site operators.)
I think misidentifications due to strange sounds may be fairly common (e.g., "It sounded bipedal"), but I don't think there are many visual misidentifications, except when there were very fleeting glimpses. I think most misidentifications tend in the opposite direction: people refuse to believe what they've seen, and assert it was a bear. (This is plainly evident in multi-witness sightings.)
If there were a lot of phony stories being accepted into books and databases, we'd hear a lot of crowing (or deathbed "confessions") by successful tall-tale-tellers after the fact, boasting of how they'd fooled the experts and authors and interviewers. They'd happily call the scoftics, to get publicity for their tale. Local newspapers would gladly trumpet their recantations. The media eat up such stories; as Henry Bauer says, "the 'news value' of anomalistics lies in its absurdities." But such revelations have been rare.
One of the pieces of "soft" evidence (the type that's unjustly denigrated) I like is the way field researchers characterize many witnesses as "shaken" by their experience. That's hard to fake. Also, the character of most witnesses interviewed in the field is so ordinary (non-pranksterish) that it adds credibility to what they say. Here is the summary of remarks by one journalist:
QUOTE(Ed McLarney @ retired editor of the "Skamina County Pioneer" newspaper, reported in "Track Record" #34, pp. 9-10)
Through my years as a journalist ... the majority of people that I've talked to in regards to the Sasquatch phenomenon are just nice, ordinary people. They haven't been people with any axes to grind of any kink, no money to be made, or anything else ... they're moms, dads, grandmas, grandpas ... Many of them did not want their names or photographs in the paper, and so I respected that, and just sort of salted the information away. [This suggests that journalists should be "pumped" about unpublished BF tales they may have! They may be a new source.] What I was impressed mostly through all of this, was that these are really nice people who have definitely experienced something that was completely out of the ordinary.
QUOTE(jimf @ Nov 27 2003, 10:04 AM)
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Nov 26 2003, 09:40 PM)
So there'd be more pairs seen, more children, more females, more family groups, more chest-thumping, more gibbering, more tree-climbing, more knuckle-walking, more mutual grooming, more feces-throwing, and more occasions when they were found sleeping or just sitting around. (Hey, it's an insight, maybe!)
Sounds like what you see at K-mart..
Substitute wall mart for K mart, and yeah, that's about right!
Have we been "Searching for Bigfoot in all the Wrong Places"?! 
For someone not previously interested in finding bigfoot,Turning tail and never returning is not out of the question.Especially if they knew the victorious squatch may still be lurking.They might not ever tell anyone either.
QUOTE(cryptic1 @ Nov 28 2003, 12:26 AM)
For someone not previously interested in finding bigfoot,Turning tail and never returning is not out of the question.Especially if they knew the victorious squatch may still be lurking.They might not ever tell anyone either.
If that were the case then stories like this one would never get printed in the Track Record nor would they be reported to "Bigfoot Researchers" ...
No I believe stories like this get told for a reason and that reason is that those who tell them enjoy the attention or like to "fool" some dumb Bigfoot believer.
Of course each case must be evaluated on its own merits and I dont mean to imply that every story is false but I do believe most of the time they are indeed false.
George, you went soft on us
Rainy, you've obviously never watched any wildlife
documentaries
Animals can be and are very
brutal to one another (same species) on occasion.
Rainy, you've obviously never watched any wildlife
documentaries
Animals can be and are verybrutal to one another (same species) on occasion.
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Nov 26 2003, 08:40 PM)
Actually, I do have a record of two BF fighting over deer entrails in Klamath Co., OR.
Another in the Hunter/Dahinden book, Sasquatch (p. 103, 1975 paperback ed.), actually relates to a 1947 Vancouver, BC tale of an 8-foot slim, tapering shoulders creature leading on a tether, hands tied, another broad 6-foot creature.
Another in the Hunter/Dahinden book, Sasquatch (p. 103, 1975 paperback ed.), actually relates to a 1947 Vancouver, BC tale of an 8-foot slim, tapering shoulders creature leading on a tether, hands tied, another broad 6-foot creature.
anyone know if these 2 reports can be found online?
hey i`m new to posting but not knew to the sight. My brother and I have live near strawberry Ca all of are 36years. We have dozens of friends in the logging community that pass on confidential info. I have never heard nor been passed on info from their verious incounters of anything other than the sighting of a solitary animal and have ever seen or heard about multiple track finds together. I feel, and i`m just guessing that a dominant male must be territoial and like bears the males stir clear from the rest of their kind. If BF stuck together in Clans or families we`d see many more sightings and track. anyway just my opinion based on my interviews with my logger friends and their various incounters in the strawberry area over the last 15 years of looking around my area of Tuol. co. ca
Let us just ASSUME that that report was true. The fact that they used two separate descriptions would lead me to believe it might be true. One was larger, darker, obviously older. The other smaller, reddish brown. Now think of gangs or tribes, and how they fight each other. They look different, wear different clothing. It is entirely possible that they were from two seperate groups...gangs for instance. A white guy fighting a Mexican for a comparative analogy. And eating the guts? Not so far fetched or hard to believe. In many ancient societies, eating the innards or flesh of ones enemy endows you with their life force or strength. I also think this fight gives them more human credibility...punching, throwing dirt. How many apes punch throw dirt. Bite, scratch, cling perhaps...but not punching. That is so humanistic.
Iv`e bear hunted for over 15 years and have never found another bear eating it`s own kind do they? Maybe but this sory just sounds a bit to faqr fetched maybe a female fighting off a male for it`s young but if they are indeed territorial most animals rarley come to an actual fight. Mule deer will want dominace and even pre spar for the right to mate but they will rarely fight wants the real mating begins. the boss of the woods so to speak rarely have to prove it
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.