Jun 222013
Snowflake the Gorilla in September, 2003

If you are a fan of apes, then you probably have heard about the famous albino gorilla, Snowflake.  He was euthanized in 2003 to alleviate his suffering from skin cancer, but recently some genetic tests were done on his remains that found the most likely cause of his rare albinism was inbreeding.

For some time now, it has been a concern among bigfoot researchers that perhaps human development has cut off populations of bigfoots from one another thus forcing them to breed with their own kin.  Often held as evidence of this hypothesis is the prevalence of three-toed footprints.  I would disagree that footprints showing three or four toes indicates inbreeding, though.  I think that these footprints either strongly illustrate the flexibility of the sasquatch foot, or are the results of outright hoaxes.  However, perhaps the prevalence of albino bigfoot sightings might be an indicator of inbreeding, especially in the light of the above revelation about Snowflake?

“Pinkie” and a friend at the Tacugama Chimpanzee Sancuary
A quick search using John Green’s excellent (and searchable) online database indicated that there were 99 reports of white or off-white bigfoots on record.  Certainly, many of these sightings are reporting the same individual bigfoot having been seen multiple times in a certain area.  Also to consider is that Green’s database includes sightings from many decades.

To explore the possibility of albinism being an indicator or possible inbreeding by bigfoots, I undertook a thought experiment.  I plotted Green’s white bigfoot reports on a Google Maps layer, and then tried to attribute the sightings to individual bigfoots.  I took into consideration the sighting locations, their proximity and connectivity via mountain ranges and river systems, the years the bigfoots were spotted combined with the life expectancy of apes, and some size estimates as well (bigfoots would obviously not get smaller as time passed, so strongly differing size estimates where the creature got smaller over time were attributed to multiple individuals).  I color coded the sightings in a way to show what I think might be reasonable to show the same individuals showing up in various locations.

A map showing sighting reports for white bigfoots

I admit that the above process is pretty speculative, but it gave some interesting results.  I have plotted encounters with over thirty white bigfoots since 1955 (there was one outlier from 1938).  It is very possible that some of the sightings I attributed to more than one individual are actually the same bigfoot with either a longer lifespan than I used as a base, or with a stronger wanderlust than I expected.  So, to be more conservative in my estimates, I will cut this estimated number by more than half to just fifteen.

Albanism is pretty rare in any species, but in great apes it is extremely rare.  In humans, about 0.0059% (1 in 17,000) of the population has albinism.  However in the other great apes, the only known examples are Snowflake the gorilla and Pinkie the chimpanzee, both of whom are now dead.  (Certainly there either are other albino individuals in the wild, or have been in the past, but I”ll ignore this for our purposes.)

Snowflake casting the camera a sidelong glance.

Looking at the population estimates of the the three great ape species with documented albinism might give us some vague insight into whether or not this could be an indicator of inbreeding in bigfoots.  Using the numbers for humans (1 in 17,000), the 15 individual bigfoots hypothesized above would give a population of bigfoots as around 255,000.  This is clearly way off the chart as far as a reasonable population estimate for bigfoots.  

Using the other apes gives us no better estimate for bigfoots, as albinism is even rarer in those species.  The world populations estimated are 100,000 to 200,000 for chimpanzees, and an estimated 100,000 for the lowland gorilla (the species Snowflake was).  There are no known examples of albino mountain gorillas nor orangutans.  Again, using 15 individual bigfoots and applying the population numbers for other apes, the calculations yield over a million bigfoots.  Obviously way too many for an obviously rare species.
I suppose it is possible that albinism is more common in bigfoots than in any other species of great ape, but this seems unlikely.  Also possible is that my numbers are way off due to incorrect speculation on my part, hoaxing or misidentification on the part of witnesses, or any number of errors.  Also to consider would be these “white” bigfoots actually being of the more blonde variety which would be far more common, or even that bigfoot hair turns increasingly more grey or white as they grow older as humans do.  However, I also believe that not all witnesses who have seen white bigfoots have reported them, further confusing the matter.  
From my efforts to reverse engineer a reasonable bigfoot population estimate from the number of white bigfoot sightings, it seems that these individuals are being seen way too often to indicate a normal ratio of albinos in their population.  It seems that there are way too many individual bigfoots with albinism than there should be.

I see no way around the idea that inbreeding could possibly be affecting the bigfoot population.  Inbreeding seemed reasonable even before this thought experiment due to the species’ rarity, as well as the possibility of human development cutting off breeding populations.  If my assumption that bigfoot genetics generally should follow the same pattern as the other apes (including humans) is correct, even one albino bigfoot report should be extremely rare, and there are dozens of sightings describing white bigfoots.  

As always, seeking answers about bigfoots yields more questions than answers.

Apr 092013
A gelada baboon in Simien Mountains National Park, Ethiopia.
Photo by A. Davey via Flickr.

While clearly not humans, bigfoots are extremely human-like in many ways.  They’re bipedal, they seem to travel in small family groups, and they are extremely intelligent.  There are other possible similarities that are as of yet uncertain, but could very well be present, including the capacity for speech.

If bigfoots can in fact speak to each other using language, or perhaps some proto-language, then many interesting questions arise.  These questions concern evolution, vocabulary, and even morphology that could give rise to speech.  For example, does bipedalism somehow contribute to the brain or throat structure in some way that helps enable language?

Due to my interest in the possibility that bigfoots are talking to each other, I keep my eyes open for language ability in primates.  I was recently sent this article about sounds made by a species of baboon.  These sounds contain patterns and “wobbles” that closely resemble human speech.  Please keep in mind, this is not evidence of language use by baboons.  It only shows a similarity between the sounds the baboons make and the sounds we make.  To quote the article:

“What it’s showing is this possibility for rhythmic expression and vocal output,” Ghazanfar said. “This possibility exists and geladas have exploited it. But it doesn’t show a direct relationship between what we can do and what geladas can do.”

Still, I think it’s cool, interesting, and pertinent to what I do. Here is the article for you to enjoy:

Babbling Sounds of Monkeys Share Rhythms with Human Speech

Scientists studying the evolution of speech have long puzzled over why there are no good models in primates. While primates share many traits with humans — they’ve been known to play, grieve, fight, even laugh — speech isn’t one of them.

With one possible exception. A group of wild monkeys from the Ethiopian highlands called geladas, which are closely related to baboons, make gutteral babbling noises that sound eerily human-like. And they do it while smacking their lips together. The combination of lip smacking and vocal sounds is called a “wobble.” A study in this week’s issue of the journal Current Biology analyzed the rhythm of the wobble and found that it closely matched that of human speech.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Mar 112013

I recently received an email from a man who lives in Norway.  He told me a little about what the Northern Norwegian Sami traditions call a bigfoot-like creature in their area.  This creature is reportedly called a “stollo,” with this name being specific to the area and the Sami people.  Similar creatures in Norway are described elsewhere by more common names such as trolls and the like.

The rock pictured above is supposed to be the size of one of these stollos, and is a location where the local people would make sacrifices to appease these creatures.  The photo, along with a description in Norwegian, can be found by clicking this link.

The description next to the photograph on the above web page was translated by using Google Translate as follows:

Ogre was a stone to honor the Gods Sacrifice Stone – ogre was anciently used as a place of sacrifice, and it was used until the 1800s. The legend says that it’s bad luck to tear it. It further states that one should not speak ill of it otherwise it may go bad. You should also politely greet the stone as you pass it to show respect. Ogre (cliff) is in Kvalsundet, on Highway 94, between Hammerfest and Kvalsund and watches over the travelers through Kvalsund.

I find it so interesting that cultures from around the world have creatures that could very well be sasquatches.  It gives strong indication that bigfoots, or something much like them, once wandered on nearly every continent, though now the only signs of them in some regions are found cultural memories and traditions.

A Norwegian bigfoot?  Seems possible.

Jan 112011

An excellent article recently appeared on the blog, Still on the Track.  The topic of the blog is sasquatches and Bergmann’s Rule.

Basically, Bergmann’s Rule states that animals of a species (or closely related species) tend to be bigger if they live farther away from the equator.  As an example, black bears in Alaska tend to be bigger than those found in Southern California.  

The reason for this correlation has to do with staying warm by retaining heat.  A mammal’s mass constantly generates heat (mammals are “warm-blooded”), and the only way to let that heat escape into the air is through the animal’s skin.  It turns out that mass increases a lot faster than surface area does, so the heat-generating part of the mammal increases faster than the heat-losing part of the mammal.  

To visually represent this idea, let’s look at data from a simple example.  Starting with a cube that is 1 cm long on each side, we see that the volume (which is directly correlated to its mass) is 1 cubic cm, and the surface area is 6 square cm.  If we increase the size of the cube to 2 cm on each side, the volume increases to 4 cubic cm, while the surface area increases to 16 square cm.  As the size of the cube increases, the volume increases at a much faster rate than the surface area, as seen in the chart below.  This means that in mammals, the mass (which generates a mammal’s heat) increases much faster than its surface area (which loses this heat to the environment).  

Data and graph showing the relation between
surface area and volume (mass).

If sasquatches are hypothesized to be real animals, then a possible test would be to see if they conform to the same rules as other mammals do, such as Bergmann’s Rule.  In the article mentioned above, author Dale Drinnon took data supplied by George W. Gill and made graphs showing the size trends of sasquatch height estimates from witnesses, as well as recorded footprint lengths.  The two gentlemen have shown that sasquatches do seem to conform to Bergmann’s Rule, as would be expected for any natural population of mammals.

Kudos to Mr. Drinnon and Mr. Gill for doing some excellent sasquatch science!  

Dec 072009
It’s been a while since I’ve posted an update on the Sandy River Project. It’s still up and running, and I thought you’d be interested in what I’m trying now.
I removed all the cameras from the two locations in late August. Since I had been continuously monitoring this property since the previous Spring, I thought that it couldn’t hurt to let the property “cool down” a little by removing all indications of my presence for a while. When dealing with sasquatches, the less I interfere with their surroundings, the better for them and the more comfortable they’ll feel. As Autumn Williams says, let them remain in control.
Throughout the Fall, the many human homesteads in the area are a steady and bountiful food supply for all animals. Fruit trees are literally dropping pounds of food on the ground, and gardens are producing their harvests. Domestic animals and their food are easily found or stealthily stolen and consumed by the occasional cougar, coyote, or sasquatch. A missing house cat would be emotionally missed, but its disappearance would not be unusual for this rural area.
With the onset of Winter, food will be in shorter supply for sasquatches and their prey. It is my hypothesis that sasquatches largely subsist on an omnivorous diet, with a heavy leaning towards eating meat, especially in the Winter months. So, in order to attract sasquatches to a homestead, I will endeavor to attract one of their primary prey: deer.

One of the many deer in the vicinity of the SRP Site #2.

There is some data that suggests that I am on the right track with my above approach. The famous “Siege at Honobia” is probably the best known example of attracting sasquatches by attracting their prey. (While a footprint cast rumored to be from the area seems to be a fabrication (and not presented in my online database), it was found and cast after the story unfolded. My friend Thom Powell, who wrote details about this possible habituation in his excellent book says the actual encounters were the real deal, so I’ll go with it.)

A photograph of a possibly fabricated
footprint cast from the area of Honobia, OK.

There is also a not-widely-circulated photograph from Wisconsin that was displayed by Wally Hersom at the Yakima Bigfoot Round-Up this past May. In that case, the property owner was putting out feed for the local deer herd and accidentally captured one possible image of a sasquatch on a remote camera.

The former approach will be mine for the upcoming months.

I have now deployed one 50 lb. bag of feed corn on site at the Sandy River Project Site #2. Site #2 is still uninhabited, and therefore I assume has a relatively high chance of having the occasional sasquatch wander through. My intent is to have a steady and nutritious food supply for the local deer herds, especially as the Winter becomes more harsh and food becomes harder to find. I will visit the property to check on the corn supply and to change out the cameras every two to three weeks throughout the season. One such check was done this past weekend.

The corn bag was put out on November 21st. I put it in the area where a foul stench and an ominous presence was felt last Spring by a contractor who returned to the site to retrieve his tools after nightfall.

This past weekend, when I returned to the site where I left the corn bag, I was disappointed to find that almost no corn had been eaten. I expected to at least have the smaller forest critters go to town on my offering.

I gathered my cameras, deployed a couple more, and headed back to town thinking that the deer had not found the bag yet, which is probably partially true. When I checked the memory cards in the camera, I found another reason that might interfere with deer hanging out: dogs.

Two of several local dogs on patrol. They frequented the
area for several days at various hours of day and night.

I now think that I need to move the food attractant to an area that is farther back on the property and down in the riverbed away from roaming pets. The target area is harder to get to, and more importantly farther from the neighboring houses, which are several hundred yards away. Down in the creek bed, I have also found many ungulate prints, and tracked a cougar for 30 or 40 yards before losing its trail. Both of these latter facts are good indicators that this area might produce better results.

So, that’s the current status of what’s going on with this property. No recent activity has been reported, but then again nobody lives on site. I still think this property has a relatively good chance of attracting sasquatches, but first I need to give them a good reason to pop by every once in a while. With a steady food supply for their prey, I hope to also ring the dinner bell for the big guys. Wish me luck.

Nov 152009
Sighting reports are the bread and butter of bigfoot researchers. There are plenty of books that are basically retellings of the bucket loads of eyewitness accounts that have been reported and investigated over the years. Many websites feature sighting reports that have been followed up by investigators of varying abilities to certain degrees. I certainly have done my fair share of encounter investigations, though it’s not where my main focus lies anymore.

Even though chasing reports is not what I tend to do, there are three things that I deem very important when it comes to sightings: the specific location, the time/date, and any interesting behaviors that were observed.

The location and time/date go hand in hand. By noting these factors, possible patterns can be hypothesized. This is what Peter Byrne was after when he looked for “geo-time” patterns while running the Bigfoot Research Project. Basically, where can these critters be found, and when? That’s potentially useful stuff!

Peter Byrne and Cliff Barackman
August 2009

Besides the where and when, the other valuable thing in sighting reports is the observed behavior of the creature(s). These behaviors might shed some light on what we as field researchers could be looking for.

Which brings me to the real point of this blog entry. I recently received an email from a witness who calls herself “Carol”. The following is her email, edited only for punctuation:

“In 1968 I lived in the Bay Area of California. A couple of young men friends and I took a car trip to where I believe was inland from Highway 1 from the Monterey area. We hiked into a wooded area that had a deep bed of fallen leaves. I stopped and turned to say something to my companions when there was a shuffling, rustling sound right beside me. When I looked, I saw a (how can I best describe this…) maybe 4′ tall, rounded stance figure as though almost crouching and hunched forward; a broad-bodied creature that appeared to have come up from under the leaves where it may have been napping, I thought. The head/shoulder differentiation was quite slight, though I saw it from the rear. I am assuming it was a juvenile, since it was so small, compared to the extraordinary size a mature adult is purported to be. This creature did not pause, but scuttled away from us, disappearing very quickly into the thickly wooded distance. It did not move like, for instance, a bear, but was upright as it ran. The back was covered with a medium brown fur-like hair that was very thick and long. The three of us who were observers were startled and amazed in the same instance at the brevity of this encounter. The only thing we could say at the time was… Sasquatch!? Well, I’ve not told many people of this experience, but it remains vividly in my memory. I don’t know if there have been other sightings in this area, but I thought since there seems to be ongoing research on the existence of these creatures, my firsthand experience might be of some use.”

First of all, thank you, “Carol” for reporting this to me. I appreciate all of the stories of encounters that I receive through my website.

This encounter report caught my attention for a couple reasons. First, I have done some work in the mountains south of Monterey, CA. There are some very remote areas that are next to impossible to penetrate despite the proximity to densely populated urban areas. Also, I personally know several investigators from this part of California, so I’m always looking for ways to support them, usually by passing along information, as they often do for me.

Secondly, what really interested me about this report was that the juvenile sasquatch was thought to be napping under a layer of leaves. It’s probably a fairly safe assumption that juvenile animals mirror the behavior of the adults of their species (they are learning how to be adults, after all), so what can this tell us about the sleeping habits of sasquatches?

A snoozing gorilla in its nest.

I’ve heard of bigfoots making nests, bedding down in the open, and being found in the thickest cover one can imagine. All of these behaviors mirror the other apes’ habits, including our own.

It might also be valuable to ponder where other large omnivores bed down in the same environment. I’ve looked into where bears bed down and have found they sleep in a variety of areas, usually under thick cover (but not always). A park ranger in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California once told me that bears often sleep in the tree tops in that particular area. I’ve also heard of bears sleeping out in the open near mature trees. That would be kind of like sleeping next to a fire escape for them…

A black bear sleeping in the tree tops

Perhaps sasquatches sometimes sleep in the tree tops? Certainly, bigfooters don’t spend enough time looking up. Since sleeping sasquatches are rarely seen, they must hide themselves pretty well. I suspect (and this is only a hunch) that sasquatches sleep in the thickest, nastiest brush they can find, and probably on the steep slopes surrounding their favorite feeding grounds where human traffic would be least likely. These bedding sites would likely have commanding views of the surrounding area, and are probably close to a clean running water source. Of course, this is just a guess. I’ve also heard a tale or two of bigfoots sleeping out in the open. When I stumble on a sleeping sasquatch, I’ll let you know where I found it.

“Carol’s” report might shed some light into what some sasquatches do at least some of the time. It seems like a good strategy if the leaf litter is thick enough. Could the big ones do this? Probably not as effectively using just leaf litter.

If you have any thoughts on the matter, feel free to leave a comment below.

Nov 022009

Back in July, a group of bigfoot researchers and I went on an expedition to Bluff Creek, CA. The high point of the trip was an amazing wood-knocking event that lasted over six minutes and was recorded and posted on my website.

I saw this wood-knocking event as data to support my hypothesis that sasquatches often clap their hands to create the popping noises that are sometimes heard in their vicinity and often described as “wood-knocking”. Being an amateur scientist, I am always looking for data to support my ideas, and these knocks fit the bill.

A few weeks ago, I was contacted by a friend and bigfoot researcher who I have a tremendous amount of respect for, and she suggested that the popping noises could have been deer vocalizations. Though I thought it unlikely, I opened my mind to the possibility. The researcher also sent me a link to a recording of a white-tail deer making huffs, though the deer doing the huffing was not visually observed, just recorded.

I started discussing this possibility with my peers, and I found some resistance to the idea, but the recordings made everyone involved open their minds to the possibility. Soon, another researcher sent me the following video of a deer making these same noises.

After hearing the deer recording and comparing it to the recording we obtained at Bluff Creek, I am now of the opinion that we recorded a deer, not a sasquatch. The valley we were in has excellent acoustics, and there was some reverberation happening that distorted the sounds slightly, but I am pretty certain of the deer identification.

This now brings up several interesting points I’d like to briefly discuss. First of all, this does not mean that sasquatches do not clap. It simply means that this recording cannot be used as data to support my hypothesis. There is still data to support it, such as a second-hand report of a visual observation of a clapping bigfoot from Klamath, CA, and another witness I personally spoke to who saw one clapping near Molalla, OR.

There is also the nagging question as to how bigfoots can answer my own knocks so quickly, even though it takes significant time to find proper sticks and trees for knocking. Knowing that other apes use clapping as a form of communication, it is still likely (in my opinion) that clapping bigfoots is the answer.

A PhD in wildlife biology told me that these deer huffs are made as a distress signal. I have to wonder what was distressing the deer at Bluff Creek. Cougar or bear might be a likely answer, but we did have other knocks (loud pops that were not repeated, and sounded much more like wood on wood than the later deer barks did) earlier that night, and a rock throwing event the next morning. I wonder if a sasquatch was causing the deer some concern…

Wondering about wood-knocking in general, I asked this PhD (who is interested in the bigfoot topic and aware of research methods) if deer are known to answer knocks, and the answer was “not to my knowledge”. I have had knocks answered in the same number and rhythm as the ones I did myself. It seems unlikely that deer would exhibit this behavior. Only humans, or hypothetically bigfoots, would do this.

The last point I’d like to make about the changing of my mind on these recordings is an important one, and one that I think we should embrace more as amateur scientists: It is okay to be wrong. Yes, that’s right, it’s totally acceptable to be wrong about stuff. Being wrong about something like this does not mean that sasquatches do not exist. They do. It does not mean that one has been humiliated (drop the ego and we’ll all be better off!). It means one has learned something. It does not mean that one is a bad researcher. It means that one is a good researcher. Scientists (amateur or professional) need to look at the data available and modify hypotheses accordingly. False leads often bring about new discoveries.

A flow chart of the Scientific Method

Even after fifteen years in the woods specifically looking for and collecting sasquatch data, I feel like I still don’t know much. Really, if we’re honest with ourselves, none of us do. Sure, I have some hunches about what might be going on, but knowing is an entirely different thing.

I’ll leave you with a thought that might frighten some people, but I find comforting. It is also a good starting point for any bigfooter, no matter how many years you have under your bigfoot belt…

I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.

Sep 052009
Please hold your applause until after reading.

Recently on a trip to Bluff Creek, I was an audial witness to a tremendous display of what bigfooters normally call “tree knocking”. A recording of the event can be found here, while details of the trip can be found in previous blogs here and here.
This knocking event lasted over six minutes, and whatever was making the noise travelled towards the southeast. The curious thing about these knocks is that while the noise moved along the ridge line, the timbre (sound quality) remained the same: a clear “popping” noise.
As noted in the earlier blogs, there are some issues with the tree knocking hypothesis. If a sasquatch was carrying a stick to pound on trees as it walked by, it should not be producing the same sound over and over. From my own experience, different trees produce different sounds when hit with baseball bats (my method of producing tree knocks). Often they produce dull thuds, and sometimes I can find one that gives me the sound I want of a clear hollow pop.
Another issue with the normal tree knocking hypothesis is how quickly sasquatches answer my own knocks. Normally, most of my knocks go unanswered, but that’s squatching. When I do get answers, they are very often within 30 or 40 seconds of my initial sound. Again, just going from my own experience, it is not that easy to find an appropriate stick, and then find an appropriate tree to hit to produce the clear popping noises I have often observed and even recorded.
So, how are the bigfoots doing it? At first I thought they might be “popping their tongues”. I knew a guy in middle school who could produce amazingly loud pops by using sucking his tongue to the top of his mouth and popping it downwards to create a loud click. I thought perhaps since sasquatches have big mouths to use as resonance chambers, this could be what they are doing. Perhaps some do.
I used to hang out with a lot of Brazilian folks, and they showed me a method of clapping that produces a consistent loud pop. One opens their palms out as far as possible, to the point of the fingers being angled away from the palm to an extent, and clapping the hands together. By opening the palms, it creates a concave “dish” shape on the hand, and clapping the hands together makes a nice hollow popping noise. They use this for participating in music and dance events, such as capoeira. It occurred to me that sasquatches, having much larger hands than us, should be able to produce much louder claps. Perhaps this is how they do it.
In April of 2008, I was on the Klamath River filming an episode of Monster Quest. While there, I heard a third-hand report that helped to support this hypothesis. Apparently, one of the local Yuroks who lived outside of Klamath, CA heard what he thought was gun shots from up the river. He thought kids were shooting and went to tell them to stop. Getting in his boat, he went up river a short distance to discover a sasquatch standing in a small tributary, clapping its hands and producing the “gunshot” noises. I did not speak to the witness, so I just filed this away as interesting.

I later found that clapping is a normal, yet rarely observed behavior in other great apes. Gorillas, orangs, bobobos, and chimpanzees engage in clapping behaviors to communicate various things to others of the same species. Another small, yet important piece of data…

A clapping gorilla. Notice the cupped hands.

A week or so ago, I met a witness who has had multiple encounters near Molalla, OR over a period of a decade or so. He had seen them in a particular campsite before, and had had them around several other times, so he equipped his camper with an external infrared camera mounted on the roof. This camera could swivel 360 degrees, but could not angle vertically.
After retiring for the night, the witness started hearing tree knocks and whistles outside. He got up, looked at his camera monitor (which was inside the camper), and swivelled the camera around only to see nothing. While he was moving inside the camper and the IR light was on, all activity stopped. After going back to bed, the whistles and knocks started again. He, again, got up and checked the camera, shutting down the activity and saw nothing.
This went on for several hours. Eventually, the witness got up after hearing the whistles and knocks, but did not turn on the IR lights and camera. He looked out the camper window into the night. Though it was dark, he could clearly see a crouching sasquatch just fifteen feet from the camper. The camera that had been mounted on the roof of his camper had apparently seen right over the top of the crouching animal. As he watched the creature, he saw it spread out its massive arms and clap its hands together, producing the familiar knocking noise that had been keeping him up for most of the night.
Did the sasquatch stay there doing this all night, or did it come and go? Why would a sasquatch be doing this at all? Every answer produces more questions. Each question leads to others. From hearing hundreds of stories over the years, some far stranger than this, the main conclusion I can come to about sasquatch behavior is that they are weird animals. They do not do what is expected of other animals. If they did, we would have proven their existence a long time ago.
Let me also make it clear that I believe the witness. He has no reason to lie, and indeed, there were multiple witnesses (some of which I have spoken to) for several of his encounters that corroborated his account.
When I spoke to the witness about the clapping, he didn’t even think it was that big of a deal. Of course, I was thrilled to speak directly to someone who witnessed a bigfoot clap. This adds a tiny bit of data to back up my hypothesis that bigfoots are clapping, at least some of the time, to produce the noises called “tree knocks.”
Do sasquatches pound sticks on trees? Probably. Do they pop their tongues? Probably. Do they clap? I can now say that this is very likely. Whichever method they choose to produce these knocking sounds, they seem to have a lot of time to perfect the technique. Remember, they are very intelligent creatures, with nothing to do but learn how to do what they do very, very, very well.
Now you may applaud, but hopefully you’re just practicing for the next time you’re in the woods.