Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Faustus

Bigfoot ....surviving remnant

152 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Faustus

I just throw this out because, a lot of the DNA collected forensically(very carefully as to avoid contamination), and with hair morphology not matching any human on record, actually came back from the database as human.  

 

I'd love to see a hair morphology study done on a human that's been living authentically wild for 5 years, and see if the texture matches that of some of this purported Bigfoot hair.

 

I guess the question I'm asking is could Bigfoot just be remnant tribe of humans that chose to live feral due to whatever environmental pressures existed, and shifted from interaction, as many NA tribal elders describe, to concealment and avoidance?  Imagine an intelligent species of humans(like Denosivans,etc.) that evolved in a more feral or natural way, as opposed to how we evolved by civilization, farming, etc.  

Take a hog, and release it into the wild and we see an incredible transformation within 3 years.   Hyper Adaptation from enviromental pressure has occurred all over the planet at different times.  Perhaps an ancient line of human ancestors split off from early groups populating North America, and evolved in a more feral sense, and therefore is incredibly adept at remaining hidden from us in the remote wilderness.  

There are still tribes of humans in the amazon jungles, and elsewhere that are literally unfindable, and want no outside contact with man.  It's not an unsubstantiated premise, in that tribes of humans exist cut off from the outside world.  Why couldn't Bigfoot be them in North America?  There are literally million of hectors of wilderness available to hide in right here in US and Canada. 

 

 

Edited by Faustus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

More likely.....its just a myth.... a campfire story....

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 hours ago, Faustus said:

I guess the question I'm asking is could Bigfoot just be remnant tribe of humans that chose to live feral due to whatever environmental pressures existed, and shifted from interaction, as many NA tribal elders describe, to concealment and avoidance?  

Well I would not think it would be our type of hominid but yes, possibly another type. However the tremendous claimed range of this creature and the lack of a definitive body makes me think this creature must have some mysterious attributes too

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

There is almost no chance that something this BIG could be a type of humanity. Humans have lived in the wilds for the majority of our history, and nobody else anywhere in the world has become huge and hairy. Furthermore, there is no way that a widespread species of something this large could remain hidden in North America.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker
5 hours ago, Faustus said:

I just throw this out because, a lot of the DNA collected forensically(very carefully as to avoid contamination), and with hair morphology not matching any human on record, actually came back from the database as human.  

Which studies/analyses are you referring to?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timonthy
12 minutes ago, Night Walker said:

Which studies/analyses are you referring to?

Probably the ones which have been discussed and debunked in depth on nearly every BF thread which pops up here.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 hours ago, Podo said:

There is almost no chance that something this BIG could be a type of humanity. Humans have lived in the wilds for the majority of our history, and nobody else anywhere in the world has become huge and hairy. Furthermore, there is no way that a widespread species of something this large could remain hidden in North America.

Not in the Pine Barrens. I turned over every needle looking..:tu: 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
5 hours ago, Faustus said:

There are still tribes of humans in the amazon jungles, and elsewhere that are literally unfindable, and want no outside contact with man.  It's not an unsubstantiated premise, in that tribes of humans exist cut off from the outside world.  Why couldn't Bigfoot be them in North America?  There are literally million of hectors of wilderness available to hide in right here in US and Canada. 

Because we lived here for damn near 50,000 years and never evolved a single chest or leg hair.....:lol:

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woodwose

If it were real then my guess would be that one of the numerous ape/early hominid species that lived in Europe/Asia millions of years ago made it across the land bridge either due to being displaced by another species or due to predatory tendencies (following migrating prey species perhaps). Once in the new world it finds an environment with few trees worth climbing or it could have already been a proto-biped adapted to open grassland or coastal environments due to easy access to food in these environments. The enormous size would have to serve a purpose in an evolutionary sense else wise its just a liability; my guess would be an 'evolutionary arms race' between said species and the plethora of very large herbivores/carnivores in north America: bears, smilodon, various big cat species, bison, moose/elk, mule deer, mastodon, ect. The sheer mass of these creatures could also be thanks to such plentiful rich food sources like the salmon run (kodiak grizzly for example), I don't doubt that massive size could have been an adaption to periodic ice ages too...the humanoid equivalent of a wooly mammoth maybe. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
9 minutes ago, Woodwose said:

If it were real then my guess would be that one of the numerous ape/early hominid species that lived in Europe/Asia millions of years ago made it across the land bridge either due to being displaced by another species or due to predatory tendencies (following migrating prey species perhaps). Once in the new world it finds an environment with few trees worth climbing or it could have already been a proto-biped adapted to open grassland or coastal environments due to easy access to food in these environments. The enormous size would have to serve a purpose in an evolutionary sense else wise its just a liability; my guess would be an 'evolutionary arms race' between said species and the plethora of very large herbivores/carnivores in north America: bears, smilodon, various big cat species, bison, moose/elk, mule deer, mastodon, ect. The sheer mass of these creatures could also be thanks to such plentiful rich food sources like the salmon run (kodiak grizzly for example), I don't doubt that massive size could have been an adaption to periodic ice ages too...the humanoid equivalent of a wooly mammoth maybe. 

No fossil hominid matches the purported characteristics of Bigfoot. Trying to shoehorn fossil hominids into cryptozoology is frankly a desperate appeal for legitimacy.

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faustus

Hominids on this continent have lived with fire for tens of thousands of years.  Perhaps this offshoot of homo sapiens simply evolved to not have need for fire or implements(tools).   Lots of hair and body fat.    Like I was postulating before, it evolved physically in a feral way without need of fire, or tools beyond perhaps a throwing sticks and the like.   It's the only way I seem them existing at all.  Offshoot species that evolved to avoid and stay away from humans.  Perhaps the spread of disease occurred at some point, or they simply chose a more natural way of life in the wild.  I don't know that they exist.  I admit that I've given it some thought as one of the most possible mysteries out there.  Seeing this is an unexplained mysteries site, I was thinking we could bounce some things off one another.  Didn't realize discussion wasn't even warranted to begin with.  Maybe I should have specified I'd like to discuss with others that AT LEAST give it a possibility.  No need to get all worked up over Bigfoot...lol

Edited by Faustus
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woodwose

Just a thought experiment that's all, speculative evolution is fun. Not a shoe horn in sight ;). Also wouldn't be so quick to lean on the (woefully lacking) ancient ape and Early hominid fossil record, it changes regularly and I don't doubt we could yet have some pleasant surprises. I'm not out to try and convince anyone of anything, I just enjoy speculating which is all any of us can do given the lack of supporting evidence. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
10 hours ago, Faustus said:

I guess the question I'm asking is could Bigfoot just be remnant tribe of humans that chose to live feral due to whatever environmental pressures existed,

no

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

No. If there is/was a tribe or tribes there would be some sort of evidence extrapolated form the surrounding environment. Impacts due to animal predation would be distinguishable from a bear, wild cat, or wolf. Consumption of wild plants, fruits and berries would show signs that something other than know species had been consuming them due to the reported size of the animal it would be a noticeable amount. Experienced hunters and trained trackers would easily find and note these signs.

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari
14 hours ago, Night Walker said:

Which studies/analyses are you referring to?

I second this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden
14 hours ago, Faustus said:

Hominids on this continent have lived with fire for tens of thousands of years.  Perhaps this offshoot of homo sapiens simply evolved to not have need for fire or implements(tools).   Lots of hair and body fat.    Like I was postulating before, it evolved physically in a feral way without need of fire, or tools beyond perhaps a throwing sticks and the like.   It's the only way I seem them existing at all.  Offshoot species that evolved to avoid and stay away from humans.  Perhaps the spread of disease occurred at some point, or they simply chose a more natural way of life in the wild.  I don't know that they exist.  I admit that I've given it some thought as one of the most possible mysteries out there.  Seeing this is an unexplained mysteries site, I was thinking we could bounce some things off one another.  Didn't realize discussion wasn't even warranted to begin with.  Maybe I should have specified I'd like to discuss with others that AT LEAST give it a possibility.  No need to get all worked up over Bigfoot...lol

 You must also be able to explain how a very large animal could exist and yet leave absolutely no trace. In the 200+ years that white man has been exploring the Pacific NW of the U. S. not one single piece of evidence has been found. No nesting sites, no hair, no feces, no bones, nothing except some dubious footprints and blurry images. The DNA results you referred to are erroneous. The point being, it's useless to discuss what exactly their origin is, if in fact, they are only a myth.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 2/9/2018 at 11:05 AM, Faustus said:

I just throw this out because, a lot of the DNA collected forensically(very carefully as to avoid contamination), and with hair morphology not matching any human on record, actually came back from the database as human.  

 

I'd love to see a hair morphology study done on a human that's been living authentically wild for 5 years, and see if the texture matches that of some of this purported Bigfoot hair.

 

I guess the question I'm asking is could Bigfoot just be remnant tribe of humans that chose to live feral due to whatever environmental pressures existed, and shifted from interaction, as many NA tribal elders describe, to concealment and avoidance?  Imagine an intelligent species of humans(like Denosivans,etc.) that evolved in a more feral or natural way, as opposed to how we evolved by civilization, farming, etc.  

Take a hog, and release it into the wild and we see an incredible transformation within 3 years.   Hyper Adaptation from enviromental pressure has occurred all over the planet at different times.  Perhaps an ancient line of human ancestors split off from early groups populating North America, and evolved in a more feral sense, and therefore is incredibly adept at remaining hidden from us in the remote wilderness.  

There are still tribes of humans in the amazon jungles, and elsewhere that are literally unfindable, and want no outside contact with man.  It's not an unsubstantiated premise, in that tribes of humans exist cut off from the outside world.  Why couldn't Bigfoot be them in North America?  There are literally million of hectors of wilderness available to hide in right here in US and Canada. 

Myself, I'd say, Yes, it is possible. Homo Erectus and the follow on species were in northern China going on a million years ago. There has been several glacial maximums since that time, and any one of them could have allowed Homo Erectus to wander over into North America. There is no fossil evidence for this, but then there isn't much fossil evidence for a number of species which are now assumed to have been here.

The other option you might consider is that of a genetic mutation. If bigfoot is the expression of a extremely rare genetic disorder, then it could appear just about anywhere those with the recessive trait settle, and it would be tremendously rare. The main issue with this would be that it would demand that whomever has the mutation (Native Americans? No insult Piney...) would have to be inhumanly cruel to (seemingly) always toss their weird kid into the wilderness to fend for themself. This is not normally seen in any population that would be suspected of such a mutation.

I'd say either is possible, but realistically both are close to zero in probability. Fun to think about and discuss however.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanL
Posted (edited)

Just about everything that people have seen that has been reported as a bigfoot sighting could be some form of regular humans as far as genetic evidence. Can you imagine the foot prints Shaquille O'Neal would leave walking around barefooted in the mud?

I had a friend that was hairy enough to be easily mistaken for an ape and he shaved twice a day and trimmed his fur. People are cruel and always have been I can easily see someone that is odd looking being more comfortable in the woods than being stared at and mocked in a town. This is one reason that I would NEVER shoot a bigfoot. I was taught when I was a kid not to shoot at things that you couldn't identify. I don't shoot shaking bushes or people and animals that don't look right. Have you ever seen a person in a military Ghillie Suit. 

There is a tribe in Africa called the Vadoma that have two toed feet that don't look at ALL human. There are all manner of mutations and birth defects that can happen that will result in a person that looks VERY different. I have little trouble imagining them being treated so bad that they abandoned "civilized" society. Many of these "defects" cause similar and different appearances. You can easily identify someone that has Downs Syndrome. It COULD be possible that something that might look like a bigfoot could be hiding in our genes. We are just now beginning to understand how little we know about what all is in the genes. 

My little brother was a special person and I assure you that the cruelty of people knows no bounds. Even in my family it existed and my Grandmother made us hide him when we visited if someone came bye. He had very little mind but if he had I have no doubt that his life would have been better in the woods alone or with others of his kind. Nonetheless his genes were totally human.

Edited by DanL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mysticwerewolf
Posted (edited)
On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 8:13 AM, Gaden said:

 You must also be able to explain how a very large animal could exist and yet leave absolutely no trace. In the 200+ years that white man has been exploring the Pacific NW of the U. S. not one single piece of evidence has been found. No nesting sites, no hair, no feces, no bones, nothing except some dubious footprints and blurry images. The DNA results you referred to are erroneous. The point being, it's useless to discuss what exactly their origin is, if in fact, they are only a myth.

up and down the pacific coast the Indian tribes have legends and stories about big hairy human like Creatures. Legends and stories that go back hundreds and hundreds of years so do other tribes of humans around the world. as to where, there are mines & caves all over the world especially here in the northwest some barely niches in the rock face, others fairly deep,that could protect a lone creature or family group (and I personally have been it some mines  that had the remains of a campfire just inside the entraces to them.) while I am not saying that this is an answer,  it adds something to consider If and when considering this with an open mind. Granted legends and stories are not proof but why and how would people all around the world with no contact between them, come up with the same legends and stories? (I'm not talking modern stories here)

 My belief is that if they exists we are better off not knowing about them.

Edited by mysticwerewolf
missing word
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
Posted (edited)
On 2/10/2018 at 8:13 AM, Gaden said:

 You must also be able to explain how a very large animal could exist and yet leave absolutely no trace. In the 200+ years that white man has been exploring the Pacific NW of the U. S. not one single piece of evidence has been found. No nesting sites, no hair, no feces, no bones, nothing except some dubious footprints and blurry images. The DNA results you referred to are erroneous. The point being, it's useless to discuss what exactly their origin is, if in fact, they are only a myth.

Except people HAVE found nesting sites, and constructions, and tools, and hair, and feces, and bones.... However if such come back as being nominally human it then can be ignored, right? 

At least people have stopped suggesting that there isn't any food for bigfoot to eat.

Point being, there is no reason Bigfoot can not be real, other then no physical remains directly related to a "bigfoot" have been scientifically tested and found to be anomalous.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alien Origins

Your right there is no reason the creature cannot exist...I think the big problem here is that there have been no remains found and thats where a lot of the skepticism arises...I mean for a creature that stretches from coast to coast in the US and abroad its mind numbing that no remains have been found. On a side note you cannot ignore the amount of eyewitness reports from people who have claimed to have seen this thing...The UFO community unfortunately suffers from the same MO...As for me the jury is still out on this thing. I won't say it don't exist but I cannot say absolutely for sure it does.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

The population size crucial to the alleged animal's continued existence would have to be what number? Hundreds if not thousands most likely. Regardless of dietary tendency the animal would also require significant amounts of food source to maintain one. Therefore, the activity of this population of such a huge animal would not go unnoticed by experienced hunters and trackers. As elusive as some propose, there would still be more evidence than the occasional footprint and "blobsquatch" photos/videos. Sorry, but the animal is great fantasy and unfortunately nothing more.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
34 minutes ago, Trelane said:

The population size crucial to the alleged animal's continued existence would have to be what number? Hundreds if not thousands most likely. Regardless of dietary tendency the animal would also require significant amounts of food source to maintain one. Therefore, the activity of this population of such a huge animal would not go unnoticed by experienced hunters and trackers. As elusive as some propose, there would still be more evidence than the occasional footprint and "blobsquatch" photos/videos. Sorry, but the animal is great fantasy and unfortunately nothing more.

There's no way to draw direct clmparisons, but it's always surprised me no one's ever tried to use estimated numbers of mountain gorilla required to sustain a viable population as a guide. The study I read some years ago came out at around 400 gorillas to maintain a population, I'm not sure now though wherther this was restricted to one area, or if it was the minimum number for the species as a whole to survive. 

I'm not sure how well a group of 400 terribly arthritic giant primates with sever circulation problems would manage to remain undetected either. 

 

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alien Origins
1 hour ago, Trelane said:

The population size crucial to the alleged animal's continued existence would have to be what number? Hundreds if not thousands most likely. Regardless of dietary tendency the animal would also require significant amounts of food source to maintain one. Therefore, the activity of this population of such a huge animal would not go unnoticed by experienced hunters and trackers. As elusive as some propose, there would still be more evidence than the occasional footprint and "blobsquatch" photos/videos. Sorry, but the animal is great fantasy and unfortunately nothing more.

I would tend to agree with you on most of that...But what about the literally hundreds of eyewitness accounts can they simply  be dismissed?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
1 hour ago, Alien Origins said:

I would tend to agree with you on most of that...But what about the literally hundreds of eyewitness accounts can they simply  be dismissed?

Given how unreliable eyewitness accounts can be I would say yes.

  • Like 2

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.