Bigfoot / Sasquatch In North America

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,420
Reaction score
3,284
Points
169
Thats what I thought.

The Wildman is an architype.

And remember...we were all hairy creatures once.

(But how do Tulpas make footprints?)
Or kill animals, or leave behind hair and DNA.
 

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
3,050
Reaction score
5,127
Points
203
Having spent the weekend reading the huge thread on the P-G 'patty' film i was struck with a thought, most of the bigfoot believers say that Americas great wilderness' have plenty of room to conceal a bigfoot population, there is more than enought food for the omnivorous creature and that it is an apex predator, this leaves me with the question that came to my mind, why are there not huge populations of bigfoot, people claim to have seen family groups, juveniles and females for centuries, so by this evidence, there should be a lot of them out there, an unmolested breeding population with no predation should expand massively, yet the sightings are still as rare as they ever were.
On a slight tangent, having watched programmes such as 'finding bigfoot' and heard and read dozens of witness reports, not one describes bigfoot/ sasquatch/ skunk ape etc as looking anything like 'patty' the curious, over weight, graceless, pendulus breasted, 6'5" 'cryptid' caught on film by P&G, all the witnesses describe a huge (7-8 foot tall) muscular, graceful, extremely cautious creature, that actively avoids humans and has heightened senses that can detect a human presence long before they are spotted by any humans.

Just some thoughts that came to me.
 
Last edited:

On The Brink

Fresh Blood
Joined
Dec 20, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
23
Points
3
Having spent the weekend reading the huge thread on the P-G 'patty' film i was struck with a thought, most of the bigfoot believers say that Americas great wilderness' have plenty of room to conceal a bigfoot population, there is more than enought food for the omnivorous creature and that it is an apex predator, this leaves me with the question that came to my mind, why are there not huge populations of bigfoot, people claim to have seen family groups, juveniles and females for centuries, so by this evidence, there should be a lot of them out there, an unmolested breeding population with no predation should expand massively, yet the sightings are still as rare as they ever were.
On a slight tangent, having watched programmes such as 'finding bigfoot' and heard and read dozens of witness reports, not one describes bigfoot/ sasquatch/ skunk ape etc as looking anything like 'patty' the curious, over weight, graceless, pendulus breasted, 6'5" 'cryptid' caught on film by P&G, all the witnesses describe a huge (7-8 foot tall) muscular, graceful, extremely cautious creature, that actively avoids humans and has heightened senses that can detect a human presence long before they are spotted by any humans.

Just some thoughts that came to me.
Well they could be dying out due to various illnesses or they might find it hard to procreate.

Even Bigfoot gets old. Maybe Patty is a 90 year old granny! I used to be fit and healthy, but Ive let meself go at 60. Not a pretty sight in the mirror!
 

Ascalon

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
399
Reaction score
751
Points
109
A breeding population of any large animal should be leaving behind DNA traces, in droppings, shed hair, nails, teeth, remains etc.
It seems fairly hard to fathom how none such traces have ever been found, given how hard and wise the searches have been.

If a large hominid was living in these wildernesses, the likelihood is that it is actively concealing its presence, but even so, accidents, illnesses and other unfortunate events are likely make leaving traces behind likely too.

I just can't see it.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
12,612
Reaction score
6,723
Points
309
Where’s the rest of the early primate/hominid evidence in North America?
In fairness, it's pretty scarce everywhere. We only know about Gigantopithicus on the basis of a handful - literally - of bones found by accident. To quote myself from the Barmanu thread (from ten years ago, oh god oh god)
.and, as with Flores, who's to say that some time in the future fossils, or other findings in Australia, Europe and North America won't turn up similar evidence for large bipedal primates? As we've already discussed, total reliance on the fossil record can be misleading - not only can some soils destroy any evidence given time, but it can only ever be representative. An archaeologist of my acquaintance once pointed out that drawing conclusions purely on artefacts can lead to horrendous false-syllogisms: rather like saying "I've dug over every square metre of this field, and haven't found a single human bone, therefore humans have never existed in this field, and I therefore extrapolate have never existed in this county."
The problem with archaeology of this kind is that so much depends on conditions and luck. For all we know there are rich skeletal deposits in the soil of absolutely inaccessible areas of the Pacific NW, or buried under forests... there are places nobody has ever gone, there. Think about the UK, even - less than 1% of it has ever been subjected to proper archaeological investigation. The greatest historical discovery of all time could be 50ft under a housing estate.

Now - we can only make firm conclusions based on what we have, I agree, however we cannot for one second claim to have exhausted that avenue. There's far too many unturned stones.
 
Last edited:

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
8,129
Reaction score
17,336
Points
309
A breeding population of any large animal should be leaving behind DNA traces, in droppings, shed hair, nails, teeth, remains etc.
It seems fairly hard to fathom how none such traces have ever been found, given how hard and wise the searches have been.
The UK had a burgeoning population of six species of deer. Have you ever found a deer skeleton?

Nature’s cleaning crew is fast and efficient.

maximus otter
 

Bigphoot2

Not sprouts! I hate sprouts.
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,056
Reaction score
30,897
Points
309
The UK had a burgeoning population of six species of deer. Have you ever found a deer skeleton?

Nature’s cleaning crew is fast and efficient.

maximus otter
I remember seeing a documentary where a deer carcase was left out in the wild with a time-lapse camera pointed at it. Within a few days, apart from the odd fragment of bone scattered about, it was like it had never been there at all.
 

PeteByrdie

Privateer in the service of Princess Frideswide
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
2,346
Reaction score
2,227
Points
159

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
12,612
Reaction score
6,723
Points
309
Which opens up a whole different bag, but beyond the scope of this thread.
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
52,027
Reaction score
27,355
Points
309
Location
Eblana
I remember seeing a documentary where a deer carcase was left out in the wild with a time-lapse camera pointed at it. Within a few days, apart from the odd fragment of bone scattered about, it was like it had never been there at all.
Tourists from Cromer were camping in the area.
 

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
3,050
Reaction score
5,127
Points
203
Which opens up a whole different bag, but beyond the scope of this thread.
My post about the antlers was in reply to @maximus otter saying that it is rare to find evidence of deer in this country (other than you can see them regularly) but if they were a cryptid the discovery of shed antlers would be evidence of there existance, even if you could find no skeletal remains, in a similar way you should be able to find evidence of bigfoot such as hair/fur caught on brush, the same way you can find bear, dear, racoon etc fur/hair. Im aware that there have been hair/fur samples found and tests have been done, some results coming back as inconclusive or from a scientifically unknown source, but these are rare and disputed. As i said in my previous post
most of the bigfoot believers say that Americas great wilderness' have plenty of room to conceal a bigfoot population, there is more than enought food for the omnivorous creature and that it is an apex predator, this leaves me with the question that came to my mind, why are there not huge populations of bigfoot, people claim to have seen family groups, juveniles and females for centuries, so by this evidence, there should be a lot of them out there, an unmolested breeding population with no predation should expand massively, yet the sightings are still as rare as they ever were.
Based on this and the amount of people now actively searching for evidence of bigfoot, in areas of recent eye witness reports, there should be more physical evidence of their passing.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
12,612
Reaction score
6,723
Points
309
My post about the antlers was in reply to @maximus otter saying that it is rare to find evidence of deer in this country (other than you can see them regularly) but if they were a cryptid the discovery of shed antlers would be evidence of there existance,..
Yeah, I get that, but as the appearance of Herne is a folkloric archetype, and another aspect of nature-embodiment like the wildman, it's another element to the overall phenomenon which we have discussed quite a lot over the years. Herne, the Green Man, Wodewose etc are quite entangled in British folklore, but as this thread is about the North American manbeast it's a discussion for elsewhere.
 

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
3,050
Reaction score
5,127
Points
203
Yeah, I get that, but as the appearance of Herne is a folkloric archetype, and another aspect of nature-embodiment like the wildman, it's another element to the overall phenomenon which we have discussed quite a lot over the years. Herne, the Green Man, Wodewose etc are quite entangled in British folklore, but as this thread is about the North American manbeast it's a discussion for elsewhere.
Yes that was a tongue in cheek reply to your comment about no reported descriptions of bigfoot with antlers :p
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
846
Reaction score
1,665
Points
139
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Where’s the rest of the early primate/hominid evidence in North America?
In fairness, it's pretty scarce everywhere. We only know about Gigantopithicus on the basis of a handful - literally - of bones found by accident.
Gigantopithicus was southern Asia. There is no early hominid evidence at all in North America. This is one powerful instance of absence of evidence that IS evidence of absence. In fact, Bigfoot is all about that. Every day that goes by has more opportunities to find it and yet, we have no better evidence over the past 60+ years.
 

Coastaljames

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
3,363
Reaction score
3,989
Points
159
Location
East Norfolk coast
A breeding population of any large animal should be leaving behind DNA traces, in droppings, shed hair, nails, teeth, remains etc.
It seems fairly hard to fathom how none such traces have ever been found, given how hard and wise the searches have been.

If a large hominid was living in these wildernesses, the likelihood is that it is actively concealing its presence, but even so, accidents, illnesses and other unfortunate events are likely make leaving traces behind likely too.

I just can't see it.
Excellent post.

I mean there have been cases of alleged Squatch hair being found, and DNA tests conducted on it...ususally coming back as - unknown.

But...note...very often when there is such physical "evidence"...in some manner, and somehow, it poofs away into thin air...like smoke.

Your other point - I agree. It simply could not hide. I don't care how "big" and "wild" a lot of these places are...we have helicopters...GPS...satellites...I think people could conclusively find populations of this thing. Also...a fair few Squatch sightings come from populated urban areas...


However.

I do believe people see a large homind-type creature in the woods.

Because they always have. Everywhere.


In regards to tulpas. I think this has become something of a term people throw around without really knowing what they are. I've been guilty of it. Keel popularised the term and gave a very pop culture explanation of it, which over-simplified considerably. We all seem to know what a tulpa is, but I don't think we do.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
8,129
Reaction score
17,336
Points
309
Your other point - I agree. It simply could not hide. I don't care how "big" and "wild" a lot of these places are...we have helicopters...GPS...satellites...I think people could conclusively find populations of this thing.
Don't forget that, every year, lost people who want to be found are missed by dedicated search parties with helicopters, FLIR cameras etc., and die of exposure within yards of well-beaten hiking paths.

maximus otter
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
12,612
Reaction score
6,723
Points
309
Gigantopithicus was southern Asia.
Yeah, I was just using it as an example of how rare such discoveries are, and how they can show up unexpectedly. My main point is that the evidence could feasibly be there, just not yet discovered. Archaeology / paleontology is great when it actually finds something to examine, but I still contend that you can't regard lack of archaeology in a huge and undefined area as conclusive. It's neutral.
I do believe people see a large homind-type creature in the woods...Because they always have. Everywhere.
Yes. People are seeing something. And once again, I think there are multiple things that people happen to interpret the same way (ditto ghosts, UFOs, fae...)
 

Coastaljames

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
3,363
Reaction score
3,989
Points
159
Location
East Norfolk coast
Yes. People are seeing something. And once again, I think there are multiple things that people happen to interpret the same way (ditto ghosts, UFOs, fae...)
Yes. I think it is hard to argue against this now.

Bigfoot sighting from the 2000s -

Three young men walk into a woods in America. One sees a huge brown Squatch jump down from a tree and stand intimidatingly before the men. Another sees a huge white Squatch jump down from a tree and stand before the men making him feel safe and protected. The final man sees nothing.

They all swear their version of events was true. And I believe each one of them.


This exist/doesn't exist thing doesn't make any sense when thinking about these things. In my opinion. It is pointless. They do exist, obviously. And they don't exist, obviously.


I'm of the opinion that it would be more useful to have artists investigate these matters than scientists. We would get closer to something.
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
846
Reaction score
1,665
Points
139
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Excellent post.

I mean there have been cases of alleged Squatch hair being found, and DNA tests conducted on it...ususally coming back as - unknown.

[...]

In regards to tulpas. I think this has become something of a term people throw around without really knowing what they are. I've been guilty of it. Keel popularised the term and gave a very pop culture explanation of it, which over-simplified considerably. We all seem to know what a tulpa is, but I don't think we do.
Until recently, you couldn't easily get DNA from hair unless the follicle was there. And, it's not cheap to run these tests. Often the hair samples were not DNA tested but just examined for obvious characteristics that would match them to known animals (or fake fur). That's difficult and you get the "unknown" designation which means they don't know, not "zoologicially unknown". With the advent of less expensive DNA testing and eDNA, I'm thinking results should be showing up more often.

If there ever was to be a tulpa, it would look like Bigfoot. So many people are trying so hard to wish it into existence.
 

Coastaljames

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
3,363
Reaction score
3,989
Points
159
Location
East Norfolk coast
Until recently, you couldn't easily get DNA from hair unless the follicle was there. And, it's not cheap to run these tests. Often the hair samples were not DNA tested but just examined for obvious characteristics that would match them to known animals (or fake fur). That's difficult and you get the "unknown" designation which means they don't know, not "zoologicially unknown". With the advent of less expensive DNA testing and eDNA, I'm thinking results should be showing up more often.
Thanks for that, I'm far from an expert on this scientific angle...was thinking of stuff like this -

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2014.0161

https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries/rhi/research-papers/HART-DNA-Evidence.pdf
 

Coastaljames

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
3,363
Reaction score
3,989
Points
159
Location
East Norfolk coast
I think there are multiple things that people happen to interpret the same way (ditto ghosts, UFOs, fae...)
Or, what about there being one, specific thing, that people happen to interperet in multiple ways?
 

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
3,050
Reaction score
5,127
Points
203
Or, what about there being one, specific thing, that people happen to interperet in multiple ways?
That brings to mind the parable of the blind men and the elephant:

"A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. The first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said, "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
 
Top