The behavior seems a typical reaction to an assumed trespass. Gorillas bluff-charge their opponents and display
their strength to intimidate without the need for physical violence. Humans use nukes, but that's another story.
If this footage is real, then it implies a similar concern or coveting by the creature for a 'property' or stretch of
land that caters for it's needs. Not surprising -some may say, as many animals show such aggression in order
of better survival chances and obviously, this behavior transposes from any species to another for that reason.
But does this film indicate a instinctive act of an animal or an emotional response due to indignation?
Is the alleged Bigfoot reacting to the exploring Oil crew being there and possibly endangering the creature's
feeding/breeding needs or is it angry because it fears encroachment on it's assumed 'possession'?
There's a difference. One is natural -in the aspect of many other species in the world. The other is the concept
of ownership for the sake of confidence support. The first can show that animals do live alongside another species
without any benefits to itself or it's environment.
Running off any intruder for no reason is time and energy consuming.
Animals protect their young through threatening conflict and the barrier of our self-assumed top-of-the-tree status
fades certainly when a fellow-predator's offspring is at risk. But in the case of territory, the usual act when confronted
by humans is to withdraw and if need be, adapt to the change.
Whatever is in this film seems to be angry enough that the assumed 'rule' of hiding from humans is broken and the
act of throwing the large tree could be mere venting of that rage or possibly something more disturbing.
It could mean it decided that enough-was-enough.
This leads us to the possibility of the creature having the ability to reflect on violating species-ingrained rules for the
sake of a goal it deems more important. Animals tend have the opportunistic sting to their bow and with that, comes
the need to adapt to a situation. Man doesn't.
Man fights to obtain by means of invasion and govern with oppression. The Oil crew's activity are evident of that!
A decision is reached and no matter what the effects are to the environment, if the reason is deemed important
enough, we threaten and if ignored, we take over an area without concern for what other fellow planet-dwellers
are living there.
Logically speaking, the figure in the footage -assuming it's a Sasquatch, has ruminated on the invasive explorers'
actions and deemed them threatening to it's future situation. The Oil crew aren't fighting the creature, they're not
physically taking any immediate supplies from the habitat and they're not currently endangering a possible family
unit.
So that means the creature could -and I admit it's a leap from the usual assumption of viewing the footage, that
this creature could have the ability to realise... to accumulate possible scenarios, ponder future threats and come
to a conclusion that these workmen need to be warded off.
We currently assume that animals deal with a 'now' situation and do not imagine, dream or plan based on possibilities.
If my suggestion has any merit, it implies the figure throwing the tree -and accepting the action was connected to the
people in the area, thinks like us.
Then do we use the word 'animal' anymore?
their strength to intimidate without the need for physical violence. Humans use nukes, but that's another story.
If this footage is real, then it implies a similar concern or coveting by the creature for a 'property' or stretch of
land that caters for it's needs. Not surprising -some may say, as many animals show such aggression in order
of better survival chances and obviously, this behavior transposes from any species to another for that reason.
But does this film indicate a instinctive act of an animal or an emotional response due to indignation?
Is the alleged Bigfoot reacting to the exploring Oil crew being there and possibly endangering the creature's
feeding/breeding needs or is it angry because it fears encroachment on it's assumed 'possession'?
There's a difference. One is natural -in the aspect of many other species in the world. The other is the concept
of ownership for the sake of confidence support. The first can show that animals do live alongside another species
without any benefits to itself or it's environment.
Running off any intruder for no reason is time and energy consuming.
Animals protect their young through threatening conflict and the barrier of our self-assumed top-of-the-tree status
fades certainly when a fellow-predator's offspring is at risk. But in the case of territory, the usual act when confronted
by humans is to withdraw and if need be, adapt to the change.
Whatever is in this film seems to be angry enough that the assumed 'rule' of hiding from humans is broken and the
act of throwing the large tree could be mere venting of that rage or possibly something more disturbing.
It could mean it decided that enough-was-enough.
This leads us to the possibility of the creature having the ability to reflect on violating species-ingrained rules for the
sake of a goal it deems more important. Animals tend have the opportunistic sting to their bow and with that, comes
the need to adapt to a situation. Man doesn't.
Man fights to obtain by means of invasion and govern with oppression. The Oil crew's activity are evident of that!
A decision is reached and no matter what the effects are to the environment, if the reason is deemed important
enough, we threaten and if ignored, we take over an area without concern for what other fellow planet-dwellers
are living there.
Logically speaking, the figure in the footage -assuming it's a Sasquatch, has ruminated on the invasive explorers'
actions and deemed them threatening to it's future situation. The Oil crew aren't fighting the creature, they're not
physically taking any immediate supplies from the habitat and they're not currently endangering a possible family
unit.
So that means the creature could -and I admit it's a leap from the usual assumption of viewing the footage, that
this creature could have the ability to realise... to accumulate possible scenarios, ponder future threats and come
to a conclusion that these workmen need to be warded off.
We currently assume that animals deal with a 'now' situation and do not imagine, dream or plan based on possibilities.
If my suggestion has any merit, it implies the figure throwing the tree -and accepting the action was connected to the
people in the area, thinks like us.
Then do we use the word 'animal' anymore?
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.