Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents and More

31 Responses to “A Most Frightening Sasquatch Encounter”

1. treeclaw responds: April 16th, 2007 at 9:44 am

   Intriguing because of the perceived intelligence of the creature as demonstrated by its attempt in cutting off the car by crossing the fields. To my mind this type of behaviour speaks of a higher intelligence that is not generally found in animals.

   Actually this behavior is found in a number of animal species which hunt in cooperative packs. As for the chase I think it was just the SAS’s curiosity which kept the playful chase going for a while.

2. DWA responds: April 16th, 2007 at 9:45 am

   I’ve always believed that the apparent absence of sas/car collisions as indicated by the literature – although actually I have read one or two instances in which the critter didn’t seem to be seriously hurt – stems directly from the creature’s understanding that cars stick to roads. Glad to see that confirmed. 😀 My experience demonstrates that other North American animals do not understand this. (Haven’t tested it with bears yet; they might get it, as we don’t seem to roadkill too many of those.)

   The understanding of shortcuts is pretty common to kids as young as toddler age. Doesn’t seem that much of a stretch for the animal we’re talking about here. It’s rare indeed to read about an intimidation display in which the animal actually shows itself. But it does happen.

   Keep us updated. Might want to contact this guy to let him know Cryptomundo’s interest.

3. dogu4 responds: April 16th, 2007 at 10:17 am

   Interesting story. The idea of a nocturnal or crepuscular open ground predator triangulating its escaping prey as an act of husbandry rather than simple attack is one that fits well with my concept of how this creature came to occupy the landscapes in which we currently see them. I hope more details emerge. I’d love to examine the landscape architecture of the area in which this occured.

4. raisinsofwrath responds: April 16th, 2007 at 10:23 am

   Craig,

   Even though I’m sure that “Jane” was genuine about the whole ordeal I do recall as to how she made a point of how boring a typical night was for them.

   With this in mind and knowing that some NA’s still dress up in animal skins for various reasons, did it ever cross your mind that there may have been other’s around that night that were just as bored as Jane and her friends were? I think you know where I’m going with this and it’s not to discredit anything but just wanting to consider all the possibilities. Maybe next time you go to follow up on the story it may be a good idea to do a little snooping around to find out a little more about the “rez”.

   As much as I want to believe that it was a BF incident, I’m sure there are jokes perpetrated there like anywhere else. For all we know there is another group of friends that is still laughing over the night they put on the bear skin and chased the carload of HS rivals.

   Again, just looking at all the angles and possibilities. I hope that I’m way off as it is a great story.

5. Bob Michaels responds: April 16th, 2007 at 12:58 pm

   This had to be a male Sasquatch who was in heat and attracted to Jane and perhaps wanted to steal her and retreat to his abode.
   First Nation stories have indicated that Sasquatches enter homes and steal children. I see no other reason for this aggressive response from the Big Fella.

6. DWA responds: April 16th, 2007 at 4:38 pm

   raisinsofwrath:

   Definitely in the spirit of keeping all angles open, but in the proper perspective, I doubt this was a human in an ape suit. What I read says no way.

   1. The size and speed of the critter seem apparent from the report. A man in a suit – even a one-piece Lycra track suit and appropriate footwear – will pose no challenge of any kind to a speeding car. Shortcut or no. My inclination, were I the driver encountering such a clown, would be to try to run the dude over, and put the fear shoe on the other foot.

   2. These folks sound from the read to have been way scared. I’m not sure that anything exists more calculated to draw snickers than a man in an ape suit. Particularly one trying to run. In short: no one in a car is scared of a guy in a costume.

   Either they saw a sas, or they’re flat lying, or good hallucinogens were involved. No suit here.

   I’m not sure why anyone thinks men in ape suits are responsible for sas sighting reports. You can find someone anywhere who might get taken in by it, but we’re talking way gullible here. I’ve never seen a human in such a suit who didn’t telegraph that fact quite quickly.

7. Remus responds: April 16th, 2007 at 9:13 pm

   Just a comment on the smell –

   So often the sasquatch/bigfoot/skunk-ape is described by that smell of “something that had been dead awhile”.

   If true, that suggests a dedicated carnivore.

   Happy camping!

8. Remus responds: April 16th, 2007 at 9:16 pm

   And while I’m at this –

   We never seem to find a dead sasquatch in the woods or as a roadkill.

   Almost all primitive societies buried their dead, usually in well hidden places…

9. calash responds: April 16th, 2007 at 9:58 pm

   Has this story been posted previously? As I was reading this I seemed to know how the story would go. This is either the same report or very similar to a report I saw several months ago. I enjoy browsing various web sites and reading of Bigfoot encounters. Unfortunately I have read so many that details such as locations or times are not easily recalled. Maybe it was on the BFRO sightings database?

   Regards

10. raisinsofwrath responds: April 17th, 2007 at 11:12 am

    DWA,

    If you noticed, I never once used the term “ape suit”.

    I’m sure you are quite familiar with Skinwalkers on reservations and to this day there are still NA’s dressing in animal skins and terrifying others as Skinwalkers. In fact they are so good at it that many swear that they take on the real form of the animal and are also claimed to run very fast.

    If someone were taking shortcuts and the people in the car are already terrified, everything takes on a more extreme nature. The speed, the appearance and even the specifics of the ordeal.

    I never read anywhere in the story as to a good description of the assailant or just how fast it was running. If we all remember the incident of the alleged BF seen sprinting across a hillside in the memorial day footage I believe it was, it was claimed that no human could run the hillside that fast until they did the experiment with the sprinter and found that he not only covered the distance easily but in less time than the alleged BF.

    I want BF to be out there as much as anyone but to put stock in a carload of teenagers without question is silly.

11. mystery_man responds: April 17th, 2007 at 11:46 am

    Remus- Well, herbivores can smell pretty bad too. Been to the elephant area of the zoo recently? Considering that most primates are not primarily carnivores, I do not think that there are enough facts to label Bigfoot as a full on carnivore at this point. In fact, that would be a jump from every other large primate known. Although some are omnivores and eat meat, they do not rely on this as the basis of their diet. I’ve always thought that the foul smell so often reported could have some sort of evolutionary advantage myself. Maybe as a way to warn other creatures away. I do not think that it is absolutely indicative of this being a strict carnivore.

    As far as the idea put forward in the article that this was a Bigfoot protecting her children, I find it hard to imagine any intelligent creature would leave them unprotected and alone as it goes on a lengthy, unnecessarily far chase of the threat. I would think it would not want to let them out of its sight if it was so keen to protect them. A lot of animals will intimidate a threat or even attack them, but chase a car that far for so long while its kids get left behind? That doesn’t add up.

    I think that maybe Bigfoot, like people, have different personalities and some may just be more aggressive than others. There may be no other reason for this behavior other than this particular specimen is one mean son of a gun. Perhaps this one was startled by the car and was in a foul mood and got enraged enough to give chase? Just something to speculate about.

12. DWA responds: April 17th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    mystery_man: agree on pretty much everything you’ve said, but there may be another take on the protecting-young angle here.

    In one other case I’m aware of, the speculation was that a lactating female was accompanied by a male, which was the animal doing the intimidation display. In this case the animals were never seen, the situation being inferred from secondary evidence. It’s on the BFRO website for Maine, Pisquataquis County. It’s also one of the most intriguing reports I’ve read for the nature of the secondary evidence. I think the general consensus on this situation – such as there is – is that family groups form until young are ready to go out on their own.

    So the male might feel comfortable in going somewhat afield to chase off – and even lure away = a threat, leaving the female with the baby. Not that I think the male might be concerned about any other animal out there being a threat.

    Or, as you say, it could just have been a lone Big Guy feeling very territorial. And either way, behaving much like silverback gorillas do in similar circumstances.

13. raisinsofwrath responds: April 17th, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    In many instances in nature a mother will leave her young to draw predators away and make herself a target or to chase a predator.

    Often the young lay motionless blending in with surroundings while mom deals with the threat. Often chasing a threat for several hundred yards.

    If it were a family group I could see a male giving chase to drive an invader away from the family.

    None the less, lots of good theory happening here guys!

14. DWA responds: April 17th, 2007 at 1:05 pm

    raisinsofwrath:

    The last thing I’d put serious stock in is the word of a teenager – or a carload of them – on something like this.

    But I also wouldn’t dismiss out of hand an explanation of the encounter that passes Occam’s Razor either. Whatever the evidence for the animal’s existence, that this was a sasquatch – whether actually true or not – is the simplest explanation (other than that they were flat lying – which actually isn’t very simple given how many years have passed since it happened).

    And we all know what Occam says about the simplest explanation.

15. mystery_man responds: April 17th, 2007 at 1:20 pm

    Rainsofwrath- Yeah, for several hundred yards maybe. This was a lengthy five minute chase, probably a lot more than a hundred yards, which seems like an uneccesary risk to make. I mean, It chased them all the way to the edge of town. Most animals will chase the threat until it is safely on its way, not dogedly pursue it for such a long distance. Perhaps, like DWA said, there was another around as well.

16. raisinsofwrath responds: April 17th, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    mystery_man,

    Point taken! That would be quite a distance for a mother to chase a threat. That is if the distance covered is not exaggerated by the subject. Many people have trouble judging distance.

    DWA,

    I do understand your point of view and I don’t think this story was made up at all. The point I’m trying to make is did they actually see a BF or something else? Did it happen as they say or is this just how they remember it?

    I think you’ll agree that teenagers in a state of terror are likely to imagine all sorts of monsters.

    Although I will agree that in a multitude of cases it does apply, I have to respectfully disagree that this being BF passes Occam’s razor.

    Perhaps we can rule out some of my theory after your next conversation with the subject.

    As I said, I certainly hope this is a BF encounter but I cant just say “OK, it is” and be on my way without more info.

17. windigo responds: April 18th, 2007 at 7:52 pm

    After reading this, I can’t help but feel that Sasquatch really enjoy scaring the hell out out us. I think this situation be much akin to a child having fun terrifying their younger brothers and sisters. Imagine if the answer was that simple.

18. DWA responds: April 18th, 2007 at 9:48 pm

    raisinsofwrath:

    All points taken. Except the Occam one.

    No one eyewitness to an eight-foot ape that science doesn’t recognize can be taken at their word. That’s just the way it is.

    I’m just saying that there seem to be if we’re going with Occam two possibilities: (1) sasquatch and (2) lie. There’s too much detail here for me to say “fear;” people scared enough to imagine things usually don’t imagine them in this kind of detail. And they usually get over their fear when they see – as they inevitably would have over the course of this long an encounter, with the subject getting that close – that their initial panic was unjustified. That they never did seems extremely weird to me. So I think the “fear” answer wouldn’t pass the Razor for sure.

    But that doesn’t necessarily rule it out. Occam only says “most likely;” he doesn’t say “only possibility.”

19. mystery_man responds: April 18th, 2007 at 10:50 pm

    Good posts everybody! A little off the ongoing topic, does anybody other than me wonder what it would have done if it had caught up to them? Assuming this was a real encounter with a Bigfoot, I wonder if it would have just done a lot of chest thumping and intimidation like a male silverback gorilla might have, or would it have caused some hurt? Personally, I think that since it gave such hot pursuit, it was not merely interested in scaring them off, but out to do some damage. I get the feeling that some bodies would have turned up minus arms if this thing had caught them. I also wonder if there has ever been any deaths linked to any sort of sasquatch attack that anyone knows of. Curious to know what you other posters think about this.

20. Remus responds: April 18th, 2007 at 11:37 pm

    Follow up on mystery-man,

    I know I’m pushing this here but…

    What if they not only bury their own dead but their victims as well? What they don’t devour that is. What if they ARE carnivores?

    I really don’t think there is any truth to this but I just want to explore that possibility.

    Any ideas on how that scenario could be researched or quantified?

21. DWA responds: April 18th, 2007 at 11:37 pm

    mystery_man: I promise to stop saying “Read sighting reports.”

    On second thought, naaaah. Where would I be without my schtick?

    I’d be willing to bet – again just based on what I’ve read – that if they’d flat stopped the car the sas would have retreated. Intimidation displays always seem to stop well – very well – short of physical violence. (In fact in most, the ape doesn’t even show itself.)

    There is one “known” har har sasquatch fatality, I believe – and the tale has been told by none other than Teddy Roosevelt. Apparently a couple trappers irritated one beyond mere upset, and one of them wound up dead. Wish I knew where the detailed account was online, but I’ve seen it in more than one book.

22. dogu4 responds: April 19th, 2007 at 10:07 am

    These are all interesting questions and good possible explanations but I can’t help but think that an amimal capable of this kind of open ground behavior is not the forest dwelling primate which seems to be one of the widely accepted theories of its natural history.

    While more regularly seen more closely in forest habitat, I think that those sightings are the result of a creature more suitable to open ground, unable to use its natural ability to identify and avoid us, being caught off guard.

    Afterall, who goes hiking across the great plains to go camping? A large brown body in tall grass is naturally seen as a cow, or moose or horse or bison. Our propensity to see things as we think they are would explain how a cryptic creature could be mistaken for the ordinary.

    The presumed physiology and size and mobility of what we associate with BF just seems more likely the result of an evolutionary path that would have been wonderfully suited for vast open ground habitat, and while these days the great northern forests dominate what we see as the remaining wilderness, in fact the wide open grasslands supported huge complexes of gigantic animals and comprised the the largest contiguous habitat in the world.

23. DWA responds: April 19th, 2007 at 10:40 am

    dogu4:

    Interesting speculation there. First time I’ve heard it, and of course it makes incredible sense. Isn’t that what we say of our own evolution – Proconsul going upright and forsaking the trees for the open savanna?

    Of course there are modern analogues to the sas. They just aren’t primates. The brown bear and the wolf clearly evolved as animals of open country, just as clearly as the black bear with its tree-climbing ability evolved as a forest critter. They populated the American plains in great numbers, as Lewis and Clark could attest (frequently to their dismay). But thanks primarily to the coming of “civilized” European man, both primarily occupy forests or high alpine country now (other than those in the Arctic – where you find brown bears and wolves but no black bears).

    The sas’s intelligence and stealth – the latter as prominent in the anecdotal literature as its great speed afoot – have allowed it, like the bear and the wolf, to adapt well to forested country. But this is interesting to speculate upon. The sas clearly is seen often enough in open country for the speculation to have merit.

    Besides, other than juveniles who appear to be good at it and who are adept at using trees as camouflage, sas can’t (or rather rarely do) climb.

24. mystery_man responds: April 19th, 2007 at 10:56 am

    Well, let’s not forget that there are quite large animals that have evolved to life in the forest as well. I’m not saying that Bigfoot could not have evolved to be an open ground creature, just that it is not the only possibility based on just size alone. Being of large size does not mean necessarily that it is adapted for life on the open plains. Look at the great apes of today and you will find that they primarily inhabit forested areas.

25. dogu4 responds: April 19th, 2007 at 10:58 am

    Thanks for your comments, DWA. This envisioning of BF being a creature of the Pleistocene’s mammoth steppe is one that I’ve been harboring and reflecting on a lot, due to an interest I’ve developed in trying to see the antecedents of today’s landscapes (much diminished landscapes, I should add). This perspective not only puts some of the BFs presumed physical attributes into what for me seems a more natural relationship to its environment, but it also explains some behavioral aspects.

    Also, if you look at a north polar projection of the earth it becomes evident that once the so called “land bridge” between Asia and North America is in its normal relationship with regards to glaciation and sea levels historically, the super-landform of what I think is sometimes called “laurentia” presents a grassland unlike any that exists today in composition and size. How could one of the planets most adaptable, and wide ranging family of animals have missed out on that niche? I suspect that they didn’t for long…and long before the arrival of h. sapiens. Pressures and climate change would drive these surviving population into forests which could support them where they’d find their abilities to survive the northern climates a pre-adaption which would suit them very well for lower latitudes but higher altitudes.

26. DWA responds: April 19th, 2007 at 11:14 am

    mystery_man: true about today’s great apes.

    But what dogu4 and I are talking about are adaptations in the sasquatch that seem perfect fits to what scientists describe as the evolutionary influence on habitat selection that happened with humans. None of the other apes have nearly the competence in treeless country of our two species. We are clearly divergent from them in the way we have adapted to occupy a multiplicity of habitats. And we’ve done some of the same things – tireless, efficient, speedy bipedal travel; sharply increased carnivory; much more useful forelimbs.

    Maybe our extreme social bent – we make chimps and gorillas and monkeys look like loners – has given us a critical advantage. (Including ways to vastly multiply the uses of those useful forelimbs.) But other than that, we seem to be sasquatch with better grooming. By our lights.

    And we never have truly left the forest, have we?

27. DWA responds: April 19th, 2007 at 11:32 am

    dogu4: your last paragraph is a classic example of speculation on the sas that made me wrinkle my nose – until I thought about it a bit.

    When I first heard that sas sightings came from all over North America, I thought, uh oh, not real, UFOs here. I’d convinced myself it was a critter of the Pacific Northwest. It wasn’t until I read the BFRO site, and thought about it some, that I could see that that broad distribution made perfect sense – much more, in fact, than it being a “regional monster,” which Bindernagel (that’s his term) points out as a critical barrier to public and scientific acceptance of the species. (i.e., people from that part of the country have a quaint legend.)

    When I started thinking that Bering Land Bridge migration, and not primate evolution, might be the source of the sas, the same thing happened. Wait, I thought, that was (as you put it) mammoth steppe, not forest. But I hadn’t thought about the sas adaptations that would work well in open country – nor about the vast larder that was moving over that bridge with it.

    And one wonders whether this might open a new potential for places to search for subfossil remains.

    The more you think, the more you know – and the lack of speculation by the scientific mainstream on the sas is keeping us stuck in ignorance at this point.

28. mystery_man responds: April 19th, 2007 at 11:42 am

    DWA- I know what you guys are talking about as I know one or two things about evolution and adaptations of animals. If I don’t, then I’m afraid I will be fired! 🙂 I am not contesting anything you two are saying at all. I agree that if you look at the adaptations that humans have made to cope with an open ground environment, then compare it with the bipedalism present in sasquatch among other things, then there is some obvious evidence for a correlation between our evolutionary pathways. I can see that point and see no reason that cannot be the case considering the striking resemblances in some of the sasquatch’s form and behaviors. Perhaps my use of great apes as an example was a poor choice as they are different physiologically than us, but I was merely illustrating that some of our closest cousins in the animal kingdom are doing quite well in a forested environment. I also wanted to say that lack of tree climbing ability does not in and of itself mean a creature is not adapted for life in the forest. A forest creature does not necessarily have to be an arboreal one. Anyway, maybe my last comment didn’t make sense but still interesting speculation going on here.

29. dogu4 responds: April 19th, 2007 at 11:49 am

    Certainly, size by itself is useful in lots of niches, but consider how obviously adapted the BF is for long distance travel over any terraine, while gorillas’ size correlates with foods that are abundant and relatively nearby as are its predators and competitors.

    While I’m not so obsessed over the fossil record regarding the modern existence of BF, it is worth noting that the vastness of Eurasia’s northern plains has barely been scratched and yet there are fossils of erectus and even sapiens occasionally found. I’m not a fan of the idea that gigantopithecus blackii is the ancestor but rather an example which proves that primates have in the past experienced gigantism and so we can speculate that nature, following a well used and effective tact, would use it again though not for the same purpose necessarily.

    The process of preservation for which Beringia is so well known, freezing, has revealed some interesting finds but even so, were a hydraulic miner in up along the Klondike, finding a rack of ribs of big size isn’t likely to think it’s a primate…and +25K year old bones are pretty common up there, with scraps of mammoth teeth enamel scattered across the ground.

    It’s been mentioned that climatic warming will be presenting researchers in lots of fields with newly opened windows through which they can examine previously hidden data. We’d have to be ready to recognize the evidence should we stumble over some.

30. mystery_man responds: April 19th, 2007 at 11:52 am

    I also wanted to point out that even if Bigfoot had evolved to be an open ground creature, it still possesses the potential to excel in and exploit a forested habitat. There are many remote tribes of humans that thrive in such environments. Bigfoot may have done the same. As Dogu4 said it may have been climate change or perhaps there was a lot of benefit to be gained from moving to the forests. I think it is feasible that Bigfoot could have evolved on the open plains, and then traded up for a forest habitat.

31. RocKiteman responds: January 25th, 2009 at 10:49 pm

    My {late} two cents:

    What I find most significant about this story – and maybe someone else mentioned this, I didn’t read all the comments – is that this animal kept up with a car for “over five minutes”. I don’t know how FAST the witnesses were driving, but it seems like these animals have {or at least THIS ONE had} considerable running *stamina*. I know the African cheetah can hit 70 mph, but that is just in short bursts. And squatches have two less legs. ‘Nuff said.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|