More real researching skills thinking

I took my own advice and began thinking about “real researching skills” after viewing several Bigfoot videos on YouTube yesterday.


It was TimberGiantBigfoot’s videos that were responsible for my thoughts. I watched him use two purchased wood-knocking sticks to reproduce what he believed were authentic Bigfoot wood-knocks. The problem with that was he was trying to duplicate a distant Woodpecker’s technique for digging out grubs and other such tidbits from decaying trees.


Imagine if you can, a Drummer playing “Wipe-out” on his drums. Based on my own experience as a Bigfoot video viewer, I had never heard a sound recording on any video that sounded that way. To the best of my knowledge, Bigfoot usually produces single wood-knocks with longer spaces between them when he communicates via that method. I will hold to that line of thinking on the subject until someone proves me wrong.


One knock means something different than two-knocks and I would hate to imagine what three knocks might mean. For all I know, three knocks might be a call to battle. OMG! I hope that’s not so.


Here is where I refer to my storehouse of knowledge for additional thinking. Trees with the bark on them WILL deaden an impact by another object and reduce the sound of the blow that is produced. Thus, any self-respecting Bigfoot would select a type of tree with “tight, thin bark” on it or one which had a bare spot for their club to impact, thereby producing a sound that would reverberate over considerable distance through a forest. As a result, if any researcher gathering information about the tree-knocking process would be alert for any clues concerning what trees were being used or preferred for use by a highly experienced Bigfoot communicator, valuable facts might be had.


Furthermore, such scarred trees might be used over time to indicate how long Bigfoot is repeatedly using certain trees. Also, the height of said marks or scars might be an indicator as to the size of the creature that made them. Of course, one would need to note if it was an old mark or a new one for that use, due to the fact that trees continue to grow and the marks would gain height as they grew. A lot to think about here. Do Bigfoot of all ages know how to produce the correct sounding wood-knocks or is it only mature, Alfa-males that utilize them? Perhaps even gender is not a prerequisite.


Since I don’t believe a Bigfoot would carry a large club around with them, such as imagined by certain cartoons of Cavemen, I would ask myself how Bigfoot chooses what type of club to use to get the desired result. What I do know is that the manufactured club(s) that ForestGiantBigfoot was using did a fabulous job of sound production when striking any hard surface. I wonder where he got them?



Changing topics now.


Question: When some certain Researchers produce what they believe to be authentic Bigfoot yells, screams, groans or any other sounds they might attribute to real Bigfoot, expecting some response from Bigfoot, how can they be sure that any response they receive is actually coming from a Bigfoot? It might just be one Researcher responding to another Researcher. Wouldn’t that be a HOOT?


I wonder who it was that first named some type of actions from a perceived Bigfoot as “A Bluff-Charge?” How do they know it was only bluffing instead of simply changing its’ mind in mid-action? I’ve had multiple opportunities to make what I believe are funny, sexist remarks while composing this but thought better of doing it. Who can say what female Bigfoot are capable of doing in the Bigfoot realm? After all, the Bigfoot in the 1967 film that started all this commotion was identified as a female because it had exposed mammary glands. LOL