Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Bionic Bigfoot

Sasquatch sighting in Nunavik

138 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I'm not sure if anyone has posted about this yet or not. I always find it more credible when these sightings take place in remote areas by the local native people. I highly doubt the size of the bigfoot as estimated by the women, but I tend to believe their story. This sighting just happened recently.

http://ca.news.yahoo...-171155277.html

Two women in Nunavik had an unusual encounter while berry picking on Saturday.

Maggie Cruikshank Qingalik, who is from Akulivik, Que., said her friend saw some kind of creature out in the wilderness.

Qingalik said at first, they thought it was another person picking berries. Then they noticed it was covered in long, dark hair.

She said it was walking upright along the side of a hill, and was taking long strides. They said it would also sometimes crawl.

“We weren't sure what it was first. It is not a human being, it was really tall, and kept coming towards our direction and we could tell it was not a human,” she said.

Edited by Saru
Reduced length of quoted text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait for some really good photographic proof. I think it should be law to alwayws have a camera with you if you live in these areas of the US!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this one will be hit by a car also ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this one will be hit by a car also ;)

I'm being challenged already! LOL Well, my post is....I sure hope that I'm not going to be confronted by so many skeptics here. :( Since there is no photographs of this incident I don't know how you can dismiss it already. But what DOES bother me immensely is the number of hoaxers out there. These days it's very hard to discern what may be real and what is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry lol. I normally stay out of this section rather than poke fun at stuff I do not believe in...but your thread showed up in the new post area...You were an innocent victim...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sasquatches are intelligent, it would almost make sense that they're hard to find. They may bury their dead, keep away from human settlements, and may have a large range as a home area. If this place is as remote as the new story makes it out to be, I wouldn't be too doubtful that these women actually saw something they couldn't explain, whether it was a bigfoot or not, I don't know, but I can always hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry lol. I normally stay out of this section rather than poke fun at stuff I do not believe in...but your thread showed up in the new post area...You were an innocent victim...

Ok thanks, that makes me feel better then! ;) Be gentle on newbies like me please, lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sasquatches are intelligent, it would almost make sense that they're hard to find. They may bury their dead, keep away from human settlements, and may have a large range as a home area. If this place is as remote as the new story makes it out to be, I wouldn't be too doubtful that these women actually saw something they couldn't explain, whether it was a bigfoot or not, I don't know, but I can always hope.

This is what I TOTALLY believe Hasina. Sasquatch are extremely intelligent hominids! Personally, I believe they are the missing link (more or less). I do believe they bury their dead and from all I've read, seen and learned about them over the many, many years is that they are more 'human' than animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks, that makes me feel better then! ;) Be gentle on newbies like me please, lol

It is nice to see a nice profile pic. It annoys me when people do not have them. I know you are serious here...welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I TOTALLY believe Hasina. Sasquatch are extremely intelligent hominids! Personally, I believe they are the missing link (more or less). I do believe they bury their dead and from all I've read, seen and learned about them over the many, many years is that they are more 'human' than animal.

I don't think they're a missing link, I think they may be of the hominid family, but evolved at the same time as homo sapiens, and even may have followed humans across the Bering land bridge, possibly an off shoot of the yeti family. They're probably distant cousins of homo sapiens.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, HuttonEtAl...yes, I am very serious here and I do hope that I can fit in here. As I said to Hasina before, my mind is already racing and I'm finding it hard to pace myself. I have so many things to talk about, say, mention and I am very anxious to discuss many of the topics with the rest of the group! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they're a missing link, I think they may be of the hominid family, but evolved at the same time as homo sapiens, and even may have followed humans across the Bering land bridge, possibly an off shoot of the yeti family. They're probably distant cousins of homo sapiens.

Well, what you've said doesn't sound impossible or improbable to me either. In any case, I do agree with your comments and ideas about sasquatch...anything like that is certainly possible! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, what you've said doesn't sound impossible or improbable to me either. In any case, I do agree with your comments and ideas about sasquatch...anything like that is certainly possible! :)

Won't know the actual answer until we get some actual hair samples or a live or dead Sasquatch. I just hate the hoaxes with hair samples and things, makes it much less likely that any hair sample found will be analyzed because people will just think 'oh great, here's another hoaxer with goat hair'. If a hair sample shows genetic markers of an unknown ape species, it'll get things more into the mainstream I believe and less of these hacks who think that just walking along forest trails will bag them a Sasquatch. What they need is a real exploratory mission, one that may take months out in the actual wilderness of Northwest USA and Canada, there's a lot of unexplored territory up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to be slammed by you and many others here, but I genuinely believe that the Patterson's footage of 'Patty' from 1967 is totally real. When I first saw that film decades ago, I was convinced then as I am now that it was a real sasquatch. I KNOW that others claimed to have debunked it but I'll never be convinced it wasn't the real deal.

There are just too many very credible witnesses claiming to see this creature and going back hundreds of years. I can't discount those facts and for whatever reason, sasqautch has continued to elude us. And like you mentioned, some of the forests in the USA and Canada are so vast that anything could be living in them. I'm not sure either that the government doesn't have conclusive proof of their existence and hiding it. Yes, a conspiracy theory! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don't think they're a missing link, I think they may be of the hominid family, but evolved at the same time as homo sapiens, and even may have followed humans across the Bering land bridge, possibly an off shoot of the yeti family. They're probably distant cousins of homo sapiens.

I think they're just humans who long ago were kicked out of their clans/tribes for being different (suffering from Hypertrichosis) and then continued to live (forming their own small clans, etc), and still live their stone-age existence to this very day. It would explain the sightings, the legends, the whole wife snatching/children snatching incidents, etc. It explains why the bones, hair, etc, turns out to be "human". Because they are humans - just humans that have been living primitively and suffering from Hypertrichosis. It explains the whole legend (and both sides of the argument would be right for once). Thats my theory anyways - what do you guys think? Anyways, cheers.

Edited by Bavarian Raven
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bavarian Raven,

First off, a special 'hello' to a fellow Canuck! Secondly, ravens, crows and corvids are one of my favourite bird species!

I personally don't know where sasquatch fit into things on an evolutionary context, but whatever the case is, I feel that they are more closely related to humans than what we think and are less 'animal like' than many want to assume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to be slammed by you and many others here, but I genuinely believe that the Patterson's footage of 'Patty' from 1967 is totally real. When I first saw that film decades ago, I was convinced then as I am now that it was a real sasquatch. I KNOW that others claimed to have debunked it but I'll never be convinced it wasn't the real deal.

There are just too many very credible witnesses claiming to see this creature and going back hundreds of years. I can't discount those facts and for whatever reason, sasqautch has continued to elude us. And like you mentioned, some of the forests in the USA and Canada are so vast that anything could be living in them. I'm not sure either that the government doesn't have conclusive proof of their existence and hiding it. Yes, a conspiracy theory! LOL

I've never taken a side on the Patty footage, the debunking side of the argument makes a few good points, but not many. Even compared to a lot of footage nowadays, the Patty footage just seems too good, if it was hoaxed, that costume is very very good, even by today's standards.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never taken a side on the Patty footage, the debunking side of the argument makes a few good points, but not many. Even compared to a lot of footage nowadays, the Patty footage just seems too good, if it was hoaxed, that costume is very very good, even by today's standards.

This is what I believe too, Hasina. That costume and if it was a 'costume' was just too good and realistic for that time. I've seen attempts to duplicate it and even today, they fall way short of creating such a realistic looking creature. The musculature seen, the breasts that were visible, the walk and fluidity of motion...all just way too good for the 1960's and to be hoaxed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my 2 cents, not a gibe. I've heard at least one other story and seen an interview on TV of other Native American women seeing "sasquatch" "bigfoot" while berry picking. But bears like berries too. And if it is considered an honor/good luck/etc to see "bigfoot" in your culture what would you rather believe? It was a bear or bigfoot creature?

But of course I can't say what they saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings All,

In reading the posts, and having heard about the sighting a few days ago, I just wanted to add a few things. First, this part of Canada is pretty remote Hasina, not really a large population at all. I question why a Sasquatch would be there in the first lace given the likely lack of food sources. Second, most if not all indigenous cultures, from my experience, considers the sighting of a Sasquatch type creature as good luck. Quite the contrary, it is bad luck which may even lead to physical harm or death for the person or their family seeing one.

I agree the photo of the alleged footprint could be anything really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to be slammed by you and many others here, but I genuinely believe that the Patterson's footage of 'Patty' from 1967 is totally real. When I first saw that film decades ago, I was convinced then as I am now that it was a real sasquatch. I KNOW that others claimed to have debunked it but I'll never be convinced it wasn't the real deal.

There are just too many very credible witnesses claiming to see this creature and going back hundreds of years. I can't discount those facts and for whatever reason, sasqautch has continued to elude us. And like you mentioned, some of the forests in the USA and Canada are so vast that anything could be living in them. I'm not sure either that the government doesn't have conclusive proof of their existence and hiding it. Yes, a conspiracy theory! LOL

I'm not going to be one of the ones who slam you, but I'm on the opppsite side of the fence. My cousin does animation/special effects. Movies you've seen. Lots of them. Its going to take more than photographic or video evidence to convince me. Having said that....I do like to think they're out there. Better at eluding us than we are at hunting them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I question why a Sasquatch would be there in the first lace given the likely lack of food sources.

Hello Alchemist and thank you for the response. Although I'm a new member here I don't feel I'm not qualified to answer your question. From what BF researchers have discovered and found out is, that these creatures are omnivorous There is very good reason to believe that they, like any other omnivore eats various animal and vegetable matter. Like bears who inhabit HUGE and successful regions all across North America, they probably eat whatever they can and depending on the season and other conditions. In the past, food resources of sasquatch were a hot topic of debate. Many people either wanted or chose to believe they were herbivores exclusively. Therefore that theory would put a big nail in any dietary reason for bigfoot to exist. It would be much more likely that they are omnivores and likely feed on other animal sources quite often and since deer and other prey would be easily available to them, nearly anywhere in a heavily forested environment.

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there Bionic Bigfoot. Welcome to the site - since you are admittedly a newbie. I hope you don't take what I have to say as ridicule or disrespect. I would however like to offer my perspectives.

For me personally there are too many inconsistent, unlikely, and just downright unproven aspects of the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon.

Firstly the lack of physical evidence is a huge bone of contention in my book. I understand the belief that they bury their dead - but so do humans and every so often even buried human remains make their way to the light of day for someone to find. To use this logic, one has to also assume that there are a whole lot more dead bigfoots buried out there, than there are live ones out roving around. How come not even one of these dead guys has turned up? A lot of the contemporary thought and eyewitness accounts paint a picture of Bigfoot as a solitary animal most of the time. How do the other squatches know when one dies so they can go find the body and bury it? What tools do they use? where is the evidence of that?

If Sasquatches are elusive and avoid human contact and have for that reason managed to avoid having someone pop a cap in one of their hairy asses and haul them in, then why are there so many sightings? An animal cannot simultaneously be so incredibly smart that nobody can reliably find it and also so fantastically stupid that so many people manage to allegedly capture substandard photos and/or video of them. You can't have the argument both ways.

Why do sasquatches make no impact on their environment? There is no irrefutable evidence of their feeding, breeding, dying, habitaton, or migration. All other living creatures leave behind evidence that they are doing these things.

In my mind all of these issues are more succinctly and simply explained by saying that none of these are occuring because Bigfoot just doesn't exist. In order for Bigfoot to exist one must construct many elaborate side theories to explain away these few questions. Is it impossible for Bigfoot to exist? I will never go that far. Its just HIGHLY unlikely that a creature of Bigfoot's stature would exist seemingly without leaving any physical evidence that can be studied to corroborate its existence.

Am I sad about that - yes. I'd love for Bigfoot to be real. I think it'd be really cool. I just can't believe something for which there is no real evidence. Eyewitness accounts aren't real evidence. Our senses are fallible. Whether you are a city dweller who witnesses a crime or a native Alaskan out picking berries. Our senses and brains are not objective measurement devices. Not yours, not mine.

Edited by orangepeaceful79
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Orangepeaceful79 and thank you for the welcome! :)

Well, no problem in asserting your perspective and beliefs, thank you for at least responding to my comments!

I can't possibly answer all your questions because a) I just don't know for certain and B) there is just too much none of us know about the behaviours of the creature and its habits.

I don't personally believe that sasquatch are all that solitary creatures, I believe, like many, that they live and work in small groups and families. I also believe, like many others that they are well aware of others of their kind and in various ways. That they are cognitive of their species and knowledge and experiences is passed down from generation to generation and can span great distances.

'Most sasquatch researchers believe that their population is quite small and in terms of the size of their environment. Let's say there might even be 10,000 bigfoot spread out all over North America....well, that would be a very rare species in general and for the land mass size. Most towns and cities in North America have way more people than this and those communities are very tiny on the North American map.

Another point of fact to note is that IF any sasquatch were buried, the remains could either be predated upon if dug up and/or their bones would have decayed in vast forests where they might not be found.by chance.

As I'm sure you're aware, there are TONS of hoaxes and dishonest sighting reports. We can't be certain how many reports are genuine and just how many of the creatures are actually in the environment.

I tend to give more credit than most might and in terms of human intelligence to know the difference between a bear and a bigfoot. In many of these sightings cases, these are people who are well aware of what a bear looks like and can tell the difference between a 'normal' animal and a sasquatch. I refuse to believe that the majority of peoples' sightings are mis-identifications or confusion. To me, if you believe that the majority of sightings are simply confused or uncertain people, just makes it seem like humans are even more stupid than we think.

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, if you believe that the majority of sightings are simply confused or uncertain people, just makes it seem like humans are even more stupid than we think.

Its not stupidity that is at play here, at least as I see it. Its the power of the human mind to respond to suggestive situations and interpret sensory information based on our hopes, fear, biases - etc...

The simple fact of the matter is that all theories that surround the bigfoot phenomenon are just guesswork as there is no real data to build on. We can believe literally anything about bigfoot and it will all be jsut as valid. I could believe that Bigfoot prefers peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to tree bark and thats why we don't see tree bark missing in areas supposedly inhabited by bigfoot. There is no evidence to support or deny my assertion, so it might as well be true.

ITs the inherent pitfall in "studying" the behavior of an animal that can only be presumed to exist. People can say whatever they want.

I respect your beliefs. I can say that without a doubt. What I'll respectfully dispute are your facts. Because there aren't any regarding bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.