The relationship between Dogs, and Sasquatch

Sasquatches often pose no threat to our dogs, but then again there is no shortage of accounts of sasquatches killing and in some cases likely eating dogs. Even though on occasion sasquatches are the known culprits in the disappearance and consumption of people’s livestock and pets, that’s not to say these creatures have a preference for our domestic animals, but rather these opportunists have, as a whole, crossed their palates with about every living thing opportunity has afforded them. So, dogs are not a regular staple, and this article is not focused on the culinary habits of sasquatches anyway, rather more precisely focused on how sasquatches and dogs relate/interact. Although sadly a major facet of that interaction is dogs, on occasion, do make the menu or are simply killed. But that is just one facet of a more intricate study of sasquatch vs dogs.

HOW DO SASQUATCHES VIEW DOGS?
Sasquatches observe us with our dogs around homes and on forays in the forest. To what degree they grasp this symbiotic relationship is unknown, but dogs inject a different dynamic when sasquatches are trying to observe us or encroach on our property, and we can safely assume sasquatches can become encumbered and annoyed with how to handle the inquisitive dog. So, how do sasquatches view dogs? The oft stated paradigm for sasquatches and dogs is “sasquatches do not like dogs,” and generally they react adversely toward our dogs, but like most “catch all phrases” there will be exceptions.
Take for example reports of sasquatches with pet dogs. Yes! that’s an astounding claim. Albeit very few examples are extent, but if true, puts sasquatches into a more diverse convention than the beastly natures we’re more apt to saddle them with. One unusual encounter involved a mother and daughter observing a group of large dogs greeting an 8 foot tall sasquatch and then preceding to walk off with it into the woods Leader of the Pack, and in another encounter two men working a late shift observed a sasquatch with a large black dog lurking around a closed garden center.
So, are sasquatches capable of showing compassion and even having an affinity for dogs like we do with our furry friends? Here’s a tale that makes one ponder just that. One winter when a dog fell through the ice of a pond and was struggling for its life trapped in the frigid water, too far out for the distraught onlooker to reach it, in a great show of compassion and empathy a huge, hairy sasquatch, setting aside the imposition of exposing himself to the onlooker standing on the shore, ran out from the woods, grabbed the dog with its long arms, pulled it to shore, and then just as quickly disappeared back into the snowy trees. Hence, its possible sasquatches are complex creatures and just maybe even could take pets and show compassion toward dogs not unlike us. More examples would help to establish that. Bigfoot and his Pet Dog.
There is a video of a young Native American lady who encountered 3 sasquatches while riding her ATV on her reservation. One of her dogs following along with her responded to a vocalization by one of the sasquatches, going over to the sasquatch wagging its tail and laying down at its feet like it knew the sasquatch. The sasquatch then bent over and gently scratched its ear, petting it. The lady said most of the time her family kept that dog chained in the yard, and at times it would be found with animal bones it was gnawing on, but no one had any idea where the dog had got them. She suggested that particular sasquatch could have been bringing the dog animal remains as a gift. Indian Girl and Dog Meet 3 Sasquatches

THE LESS FRIENDLY SASQUATCH
But before we start getting all teary eyed at the altruistic, peacenik sasquatch playfully frolicking with puppies in a field of daisies, the greater preponderance of sasquatch/canine “interpersonal interactions” are of a negative nature. There are numerous instances of dogs cowering and refusing to venture forward when a sasquatch is present, even groups of seasoned hunting dogs in unison whimpering in fear. One speculation is dogs might be particularly susceptible to the infrasound that sasquatches can project at those they want to ward off. A few other large mammals are known to broadcast infrasound. Those are sound waves below our range of hearing that can produce varying effects including marked anxiety and fear.
In an area I research I heard about some guys hiking down a trail with their dogs when at some point along the trail the dogs flat refused to go any further. The men couldn’t do anything to make the dogs continue down the trail and they eventually had to turn back. In the movie, “The Legend of Boggy Creek,” which is a true story, their hunting dogs refused to go into the woods to track the sasquatch.

/by

Scientific discussion on stick structures

This is a scientific discussion from a friend of mine. Dr. Chuck is what I will refer to him as. But he makes some valid points concerning Bigfoot, and the making of structures.

I believe that it is useful for us to do what we can to create as “dependable” a history as possible of
the “unwrapping” of the Bigfoot history, and that includes associated phenomena such as
stick/branch/tree-structures and related figures regardless of size. Perhaps Janice and Robin can comment
on how far back they were aware of such constructions which may predate their mentioning them to you.

As you know, some of the current “authorities” cast a “jaundiced” eye on the suggestion that the existence
of stick/branch/tree structures is due to creative activity by forest creatures, rather than by wind, snow and ice
weight, or other natural but inanimate sources. However, establishing the reality of branch structures as
creations by forest creatures is a far more scientific task than just a matter of “acceptance” or “rejection” by
self-proclaimed authorities.

If a construct involves “imported” branches, then, automatically, intelligence or purposeful action, must be
involved. The “purposeful” constructions of muskrats and beavers are well known and follow characteristic
patterns. They are famously located in association with ponds and streams, and rarely involve more than
basic interweaving, if at all. Gorillas, are not renowned for spontaneously producing such structures, despite
having the intelligence to do so, (as they have displayed in the learning of sign language in Gorillas and
laboratory talk” in Bonobos), as well as the weaving of sleeping nests in nature and having been observed
to tie simple knots. Fortunately, there are no known native primates to consider in the U.S., Russia,
Australia, Canada and the British Isles, and many structures are simply outside the physical range of larger
birds such as the Sarus crane which is quite common in the U.S. Bears will sometimes move branches into
simple piles for a hibernation nest but real interweaving is not known.

It will be generally harder to prove that only humans or Bigfoot can build the small scale structures. On
the other hand, for the very large-scale structures, the potential list of perpetrators is quite small, especially
on continents where elephants are not endemic. So that leaves only Humans and ‘Squatches as suspects
for the several types of stick/branch/tree structures that have been so widely documented. The possible role
of humans has to be evaluated both psychologically and practically, (such as considerations of tree weight,
frequency of structures, and wide distribution in both common and truly unlikely places).

For too long, we have fallen for the “UNSCIENTIFIC” fallacy that if the origin is not yet proven, an unusual
phenomenon must be man-made. Currently, if the source has not been documented in the act of producing
the structure, or the source is unproven, then the commonly “accepted” “scientific default” position is
erroneously believed to be either “Human” activity or misidentification. However, such a “supposedly scientific”
position IS NOT a valid scientific conclusion! Unknown” scientifically, MEANS “unknown,” period.

Many of our well known phenomena were once jeered at by “pseudo-scientifically thinking but ‘professional
scientists,'” (e.g. “rocks” “falling from the sky); the sun being a mass of molten lead powered by colliding
meteors (until “nuclear power” was accidentally discovered); the glowing filament of a light-bulb which did not
develop by gradual improvement of the candle but the reproduction of a natural phenomenon once outside of
our understanding or control.

So far, every so called “skeptical” explanation I have read is “scientifically invalid” since the suggested
“solutions” have never been tested. Why is it that the only skeptical “retort” to a (so-called) ‘Foot running
across the road in 3 strides is a “misidentification” of a bear. (A first hand eyewitness may have excellent
observational conditions and abilities, i.e. daylight and a highly experienced bear hunter.) Can’t the
“skepdeniers” be creative enough to at least claim them to be Humans in costume? And if so, where are
the “skeptics'” scientific experiments featuring humans in costume crossing a normal 30 foot wide roadway
in 3 steps as is frequently reported for ‘Squatches? Can a bear or hoaxer duplicate such ability?

It is scientifically invalid to propose such an hypothesis without CONDUCTING an experiment proving that
the “skeptical proposal” is a valid alternative, yet the “so called” “skeptical journals” fail to provide the
required experimental evidence. Even though our current scientific consensus offers rewards for such
“pseudo-scientific explanations,” they have never presented a critical paper denying a phenomenon, that
included the scientifically required experiments! Additionally, rewards are given to “skeptics” who weren’t
even there and therefore are in no position to criticize a detailed report from an experienced observer with
a clear view for observation! Why do we continue to let them get away with “non-sense” and “non-science?”

As for stick structures, even some highly respected ‘Foot investigators still claim that they are all “natural
accidents.” However, valid science has to respect the scientific method.

While some Ph.Ds. would consider these constructs to be “coincidental,” the true scientific method says
otherwise. A scientific fact must be statistically valid. That is, “what are the chances of this occurring at
random?” If the chances are smaller than 1 in 20 or p < 0.05, (equals 5/100 or 1/20), and a discernible characteristic of interest is present, in this case the geometric figure called an asterisk, something other than random distribution, (the Bell-Shaped curve) is at play. Anything outside of 95% of the population is considered "abnormal" and requires an explanation other than pure chance or coincidence. Even more so if the phenomenon is regularly duplicated as above. Notice that in each case above, the 3 main components of each structure overlap within their respective branch diameters. This is an extremely small target with a length/width consisting of only a small fraction of the total lengths of each of the 3 branches, 2-3 inches for the thickest of the branches. In both of these structures, the individual branches are approximately 6 feet or more in length. For convenience’s sake, lets use 3 feet which would provide 3 x 36” or 108 inches. Conveniently by my choice of a conservative example of 3 feet in length and a target width of 3 inches, this provides 12 chances of 3-inch target areas per branch. However, since the geometric shape requires overlap at the center only, there is actually a preferred central target-area-in-waiting of 3 inches on the first branch which would be achieved by a second branch landing at the center of the first regardless of wherever it was on the second. An overlap of the centermost 3-inch segment of a second branch anywhere on the first would establish a random, (equals non-target) geometric figure with a likelihood of only 1 times 12 but would only form a geometric figure such as a cross or "X" by overlapping the centermost 3-inch segment. This likelihood would be 12 times 12 or 1 in 144 chances. While the chance of pulling an Ace of Hearts out of a deck of cards is 1/52, if this is the pre-announced target, and that is what is pulled, then it is statistically significant. After returning the Ace to the deck, pulling it out a second time at random would only happen 1 in 2,704 times! Clearly, pulling the Ace of Hearts 3 times on demand would be so extremely rare that science would presume that there is some mechanism other than chance at work. (True, every card has a 1 in 52 chance of being drawn, however, collectively, drawing a non-Ace of Hearts would provide a likelihood of 51/52 or p = 0.98, far greater than 0.05 or 5% considered as the “normal” cutoff.) Similarly, having 3, three-inch central areas of branches overlapping exactly at the center would be far more rare than even this. The overlapping of the 3 would have only a p = 1/12 x 1/12 x 1/12 or an 1 in 1,728 chance. This allows us to accept slightly imperfect examples and still be far beyond the p < 0.05 level for statistical significance. Also, the previous calculations do not even take into account the additional factors of the 3 components overlapping in the same plane and making contact. The scientific method indicates that statistics is the only way to determine the chances of an occurrence. The insistence that "professorial judgment" is the final "determiner" is nullified by the scientific method. While keeping each kind of data in its place, let's no longer fail to recognize when the scientific method proves the criticism of the "skeptics," or even academic Bigfooters, wrong. Furthermore, since many scientific discoveries were not even dreamt of before being recognized, let’s not arbitrarily decide what we will or will not “accept." Rather, with suspended judgment, let us await new, totally unpredictable, "scientific discoveries”. Certainly, some categories such as repeated eyewitness reports of physical subjects by skilled observers under excellent conditions have a greater likelihood of eventually being raised to the level of scientific fact when appropriate evidence becomes available. However, it is not scientifically defensible to "dismiss,” out of hand, reports of other phenomena being responsibly reported but not yet scientifically verified to exist. Sincerely, Chuck Gabriel Heiss Fri, Aug 23, 1:23 PM (2 days ago) to Gumsho, RA, Bob, Бурцев, me, David, Phil, adelehayes32357@gmail.com Yep, heard about that one. I was at Mammoth Cave like 15 years ago, but wasn't even thinking about Boogers. We saw a coyote on the riverboat ride, and the guide said there were no bears in Kentucky. He was either mistaken, or black bear have moved back in since then. Interesting.Very cool!Wow. Reply Reply all Forward

/by

Infra sound and Bigfoot

Sometimes in the Bigfoot community you may hear researchers and witnesses talk about being “zapped”. The zap they are referring to is in fact infrasound. I think it is important that we have a basic understanding of infrasound and what it can do.

So today I wanted to take a little time and talk about infrasound. First, I guess we need to understand just what infrasound is and how it works.
Infrasound is sometimes called low-frequency sound. It is sound that is lower in frequency than 20 Hz or cycles per second, the “normal” limit of human hearing. Hearing becomes gradually less sensitive as frequency decreases, so for humans to perceive infrasound, the sound pressure must be sufficiently high. The ear is the primary organ for sensing infrasound, but at higher intensities it is possible to feel infrasound vibrations in various parts of the body.

One main thing about infrasound is the ability of it to cover long distances and to go around obstacles without loss of the sound energy.

When we think about Bigfoot and infrasound, some are quick to dismiss the idea that Bigfoot has the ability to produce infrasound. But we must understand that there are natural and man made sources of infrasound.

Some of the man made producers of infrasound would be things like wind turbines, diesel engines and other machinery.

We also know that several animals produce infrasound. Some of these animals that produce infrasound are: whales, elephants, hippopotamuses, rhinoceroses, giraffes, okapis, and alligators. In the case of whales, they have been know to communicate hundreds of miles using infrasound. Even the roar of the tiger contains infrasound of 18 Hz and lower. So, this knowledge alone can lend itself to the idea that Bigfoot may have this ability.

Some may say that Bigfoot is too human to make infrasound. But we know that some vocalists, including Tim Storms, can produce notes in the infrasound range. So it is still not off the shelf that Bigfoot has this ability.

Some of the natural producers of infrasound are things like earthquakes, volcanoes, waterfalls and lightning, just to name a few. This is why it is thought that animals know when a earthquake is about to happen, they perceive the infrasonic waves going through the earth. The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami is a good example of animals knowing about a natural disaster before it happens. Animals were reported to have fled the area hours before the actual tsunami hit the shores of Asia.

Now, here is where we get into some of the effects of infrasound on humans. Some studies indicate that infrasound may cause feelings of awe or fear in humans. This is commonly reported in the Bigfoot Community from researchers and witnesses. But that is not all. Because the person can not consciously perceived the infrasound, it may make them feel vaguely that odd or supernatural events are taking place. Could this possibly explain some of the wild claims by researchers and witnesses? I think it might and it should be worth considering.

In my opinion this might even explain some of the “disappearing Bigfoot” stories that we often hear about. It might even explain the idea of “mindspeak”, and “portals”, but of course those who have experienced this will not even consider they were hit with infrasound to this degree. In fact, I expect to be verbally attacked for even putting forth the idea.

The idea of infrasound can also overlap into several others areas. Some studies showed that some people get an uneasy or sorrowful feeling when exposed to infrasound. Some even reported getting chills down the spine or nervous feelings of revulsion or fear. Some have suggested that haunted location are actually producing infrasound and causing people to see ghosts and have a perceived paranormal experience. This makes me wonder if empaths, mediums or psychics have an ability to hone in on the infrasound and interpret what they are feeling. Just a thought, I guess.

It seems that infrasound can produce some of the same effects as high EMFs. I know in ghost hunting we often use EMF meters to check for high EMF. We know that high EMF can cause a person to experience numerous things that parallel infrasound effects.

Fear, paranoia, nausea, and a host of other effects can be caused by infrasound and high EMF. These are things we need to consider when we are researching. I know in the ghost hunting world we attempt to detect this type of thing, but I don’t think we do it near as often in the Bigfoot research field. We may be able to rule out some cases due to infrasound or high EMF but I still think there will be many that we can’t fully explain.

There are many more questions and scenarios to consider when it comes to infrasound, EMF and it’s effects on people and abilities. But we do need to know some basic information about each of these.

Y

/by

What does Bigfoot want from us Humans

What Do Bigfoots Want from Humans?

Sightings of bigfoots and various other forms of contact with them can be classified into 3 categories:

(1) Accidental Contact, as when a bigfoot is seen crossing a road in front of a moving car, or heard screaming at nite.

(2) Human Planned Contact, resulting from a person actively seeking evidence of or an encounter with a bigfoot.

(3) Bigfoot Initiated Contact, in which the bigfoot actively seeks or initiates some form of contact with humans.

The types of contact initiated by a bigfoot include: looking into the window of a house, throwing things at a house or banging on it, approaching homesites and observing activities of humans outdoors, approaching campers and others out in the woods.

When food is taken, it is obvious what the bigfoot wants.  But why do the other forms of bigfoot initiated contact occur? The more we understand the why, the more likely we are to be able to encourage that type of contact and increase its frequency. To know why bigfoots initiate contact with us, we need to know what it is they want from us.

Here are some of the possible reasons for bigfoots initiating contact with us.  Perhaps others can add to the list.

(1)  Food, and sometimes drink.  Anything edible left outside or growing near someone’s home may be desirable to a bigfoot. In dry weather, any source of water, such as a swimming pool, artificial pond, watering trough, or even a water spigot.

(2)  Security.  Defense of territory or family.  Bigfoots may approach humans in the woods, follow them, vocalize, break branches, throw objects, and while humans are in their tents, enter campsites and even make contact with tents.  Their motivation may be that they want the humans out of their territory.  Perhaps the humans are near a bigfoot food source, or there is a mother and infant nearby.

(3)  Curiosity.  Their desire to watch what humans are doing or hear the sounds they are making (including our entertainment media). If bigfoot hearing is more sensitive than human’s, then they may be able to hear our voices, TV, radio, and music while hiding nearby, even with the house’s
doors and windows closed.  There are many reports of a bigfoot looking into a window. The closer they approach the home (most often at nite), the more likely they are to be seen by humans.  Curiosity may also be the motivation for them to approach campsites, especially when there is no sign of aggression by the bigfoot.  Many reports suggest that bigfoots may be especially curious about human infants and small children.

(4)  Boredom.  Many zoos recognize the need for “enrichment activities” for their animals.  If, at least at certain times of the year, bigfoots have leftover time after satisfying their need for food, they may then seek interesting things to occupy their time, such as watching humans and their activities.

(5)  Loneliness.  The assumed and very likely low population density of bigfoots may result in some individuals having long periods with no contact with their fellow beings.  This may explain those reports of a bigfoot frequently spending time right outside a house at nite, sometimes tapping on siding or windows and making low volume vocalizations.  Loneliness may also be a motivation for the reported cases of long term contact and habituation.  Since humans so often tend to view bigfoots as fearsome monsters, a bigfoot is not likely to find a human friend.  But in some cases loneliness or a need for friendship may be a motivating factor for a bigfoot to approach humans.

(6) Comfortable Life Style.  Bigfoots may realize that humans always seem to have food, shelter, and entertainment.  They may come in close to observe these things with some idea of trying to improve their own life style.

On the one hand, it is obvious that bigfoots in general have an overwhelming desire to not be seen by humans.  But on the other hand, there is reported a very strong pattern of bigfoots approaching humans (both in the forest and around homes), when they could more easily just keep their distance and remain entirely unknown. In these situations, they apparently do want something from us, or something associated with us. Understanding what they want is the key to increasing both the frequency and quality of our contacts with the bigfoot.

/by

Why do Sasquatches smell?

The Scent of Sasquatch

With  thousands of bigfoot sighting reports around North America yearly,  we can start to see patterns, and also differences in the types of reports in what people see, hear… and also smell.

 

So what’s that awful smell all about? And why doesn’t everyone who’s had a sighting report an odor when they have their encounter? Some report a smell, and some don’t. Great apes are known to emit an odor when they’re excited or feel threatened. Do sasquatches fall into that category? Is that all there is to it? There are many and various thoughts on the matter, and each makes sense in its own right. But what’s the real answer?

One zoologist mentioned that people emit odors as well. He  noticed his  body puts out a perfumy smell when he is  around a woman he  likes, and a much more sour smell if he feels threatened. It’s more exaggerated in great apes though.”

“What exactly causes it?”

“It comes out in the sweat and it’s produced by glands in the skin, a lot of what people  smell  [during an  encounter  with  sasquatch]  is actually  due to  feces clinging  to the body hair. That smell can be fairly fresh or old and stale depending on how long it’s been there.”

“But the curious thing is that many report an almost skunk-like odor.That’s sulfurous fumes and they can come from the large intestine,” he said.“The smell resembles a wet animal with a skunky type of odor, but most folks describe it much worse.

Leon Drew, a bigfoot researcher from Colorado believes it may be a regional thing.“I think the odor has to do with humidity and temperature. his  encounter had no odor at 30 feet of distance. I theorize that the Sasquatch odor is tied to sweat and perceived danger. I feel in the dry mountain areas the odor is less than, say, Washington State and the Swamp Ape in the Southeast.

“Have you ever smelled one during your research?”“I think I smelled one earlier this year when we were scouting for camping area. It was a skunk-musk-like smell and it moved as we moved.”

And these theories explain it to some degree, but other interviewees suggested that maybe a sasquatch can create this smell at will. There are many animals that have the ability to do this and why should a sasquatch not also have this skill? Certain snakes like copperheads and pythons do it. Foxes, hyenas, and wolverines also. Some use it as a defense mechanism, like stinkbugs and skunks, while others seem to just emit an odor when they’re agitated or stressed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/by

Waterloo Recreation area

February 2nd, 2017

I recently came in contact with a gentleman named Bob Daigle through his Bigfoot website .About a week later we had a lunch and discussed the world of Bigfoot. It was refreshing to talk to someone that has the same interest in the Bigfoot world as I do. We had also discussed getting out into the field and checking out some areas that have been reputed to have Bigfoot activities.

Read more

/by